Fireman Flynn KO 1 Jack Dempsey

Not in the least, I just think we need to brainstorm both possible scenario's.

 

It is interesting to see Flynn described as a Journeyman.

How many Journeyman have wins over Sullivan, Squires, Battling Johnson, Papke, Sam Langford, Kaufman, Carl Morris, Jack Dempsey and Tiger Flowers.

Inconsistent maybe, but surely having those names on his scalp appear to indicate that he was a little better than Journeyman or fringe top 10 contender.

 

I agree.

 

Journeyman is harsh I think.

They say the same about Battling Jim Johnson, but his wins and draws with top men prove he was more than that.

 

Perhaps we could call him World Title claimant or alphabet champion? But that may be going a bit too far. I dont think this title claim got much support somehow. g in top shape and his drop in the level of title opponents.


http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/91560469?searchTerm=fireman jim flynn&searchLimits=

 

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/103524184?searchTerm=fireman jim flynn dempsey&searchLimits=

This is a short tidbit, that is almost certainly wrong, but it is interesting that this article says that Fireman Flynn knocked dempsey out a second time. Without checking dates i presume that this is an incorrect reference to Dempseys KO of Flynn. It would certainly but an interesting take on things if Flynn really had KOd Dempsey in a round, twice.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/120311557?searchTerm=fireman jim flynn dempsey&searchLimits=

 

Here is an interesting story about old Jim Flynn, the taxi driver, profiting from the alcohol prohibition

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/106853112?searchTerm=fireman jim flynn dempsey&searchLimits=

 

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/art...jim flynn dempsey&searchLimits=sortby=dateAsc

Here is a quote to Fireman Jim Flynn denying he is too old on the basis of him knocking out Jack Dempsey. This quote, to me tends to indicate that Dempsey had quite a reputation even by this time, and surely the hobo and starving stories (for this fight) are completely exaggerated.

 

Schmeling's seconds threw in the towel against Louis in 1938 (it is on film)--but that fight certainly wasn't fixed.

Anyway, what difference did throwing in the towel make? Dempsey would have been, and as far as I know was, counted out.

By the way, the only good evidence that the towel was even thrown in comes from Flynn in 1935. Dempsey is obviously not at all a reliable source on this fight,

unless someone is arguing all the ringside reports are false.

 

The fact that he is having to defend himself against claims that he is too old is just as telling.

 

Just one thing i am thinking about at the moment.

Isnt it possible , that the $500 bribe which has been alleged was simply a bribe to take the fight the distance, rather than a dive (not uncommon in those times). This would suggest that the KO was still legit and dempsey just got caught cold, but it would explain Dempsey getting a bigger paypacket, perhaps him not warming up properly etc.

I am not saying i go with this version (and there is no evidence i know of), but it would explain away both sides of the story, wouldnt it?

 

"The bottom line is that Utah was a relative boxing backwater with little talent, low gates, low purses, and smaller venues."

Where we differ is that you see no connection between this and the apparent state statute making prize fights illegal. I think there is a connection. The danger of a high profile fight energizing the anti-boxing crowd enough to have them pressure elected officials to intervene would probably put a damper on a really big fight.

"Boxing was illegal in New York as well but that didn't hurt its ability to see several marquee fight during this period."

I checked and boxing was legal in New York from 1911 to November 14, 1917 under the Frawley law, and then was again legalized on March 25, 1920 with the Walker law.

From the little checking I could do, going illegal did appear to have a major negative impact on New York fighting. Take Benny Leonard. I imagine he would have had several high visibility fights during this illegal period in New York City. As was, he fought one four-round exhibition only. Once boxing was legalized, he was back to fighting in the city, including at Yankee Stadium. Dempsey also fought only one four round exhibition in New York City during the illegal period, but defended his title at Madison Square Garden a few months after the passing of the Walker law.

 

Under the Frawley Law boxing was legal, "prize-fighting" was not legal. Hence my discussion on semantics. Under the Frawley law men could stage exhibitions of the art of self defense, no decision was given and tickets could not be sold to the event. However, you could walk up to any number of athletic clubs in New York City which happened to be staging an exhibition of the manly art of self defense and purchase a one time membership into the club to witness said exhibition. Get the picture? Hence my comparison to Utah where boxing may have been illegal but where fights were being staged with regularity (And thats IF boxing in Utah was "illegal") However, I think the situation in Utah was different from New York because most locations, like New York, that outlawed prizefighting had no decision matches (As described above). The simple fact that Utah clearly had numerous decision matches points that it was legal there. Im not sure why you continue to argue this point. Whether you choose to believe that Utah was a boxing backwater because it was possibly "illegal" and yet still allowed is irrelevent. When has Utah ever not been a boxing backwater? The most acclaim Utah ever got in the boxing world was when Marv Jensen was bringing in fighters from all over to face his stable but even then it was considered a backwater and there were actually less fights being staged in the state during that period than in the period we are discussing. Even when Jensen was bringing fighters from out of state to face his stable it was not the hub that LA, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Cleveland, not even close.

The problem with your analogy about the period when boxing was illegal in New York is that you are A. Focusing only on New York City for a law that was statewide and B. only focusing on two fighters and C. You are forgetting that a large chunk of the time in question was during the war which kept a lot of fighters inactive, a lot of clubs shut down, and necessitated more exhibition bouts for charity related to the war effort. In fact there were hundreds of fights in New York during the period you cite. Far more than at any time in Utah's history in fact.

As I said: I think we can agree that a boxing match happened in Feb of 1917 between Jack Dempsey and Jim Flynn correct? It was scheduled to a decision correct? It resulted in a KO correct? The public showed up and paid to see it correct? The fighters were paid correct? The police were present and did nothing correct? The bout was advertised ahead of time correct? It was sanctioned by a municipal agency correct? Boxing continued in Utah correct? Boxing continued in Salt Lake City correct? Ok, then what are you arguing about?

 

"what are you arguing about?"

Nothing. I just pointed out that a primary source said prize fighting was illegal in Utah. You say he is obviously wrong.

My main concern is could this fight draw $5000?

and I would make three points.

Utah had a fairly large population of 449,396 in 1920. That was 40th among the states. In contrast, Nevada had a population in 1920 of 77,407. Most of the Utah population was around the Salt Lake City area.

Was the fight of general interest? The two special trains point to this.

So off these two points I conclude that an attendance of 1200 to 1500 and a gate of $5000 is within reason.

That leaves the big remaining question of would this venue have the capacity to hold 1200 to 1500 patrons. That one I do not know and still raises doubts.

*just for info. The 1917 World Series had a game with an attendance of 33,969.

*The 1917 Rose Bowl had an attendance of 27,000.

 

Has Burt chimed in? Hope he is well, he always added his POV on anything Dempsey.