Fireman Flynn KO 1 Jack Dempsey

And this one was discredited and as a result Dempsey was exhonerated.

Unless it is impugned, which it was, and resulted in the Dempsey being exhonerated, which he was. In short the her statement meant nothing. So why should it now 95 years later?

And you cant invalidate it. So why try?

It actually isnt. This is exactly what Im talking about. Its a case of Dempsey fans wanting to believe something that doesnt add up. The truth doesnt jive with the legend so you just fall back on the legend. Over the years its been shown that many of boxing's best loved fables, which had been taken as gospel for decades, are simply pure fantasy. The stories that were told by Dempsey's apologist do not fit at all with the actual ringside accounts. So his modern fans ignore the inconsistencies, the biases, and the unreliability of those that told that yarn, and instead choose to try to bend the now verifiable facts into their own narrative. Sorry, but thats the hallmark of someone looking for tidbits to support their argument and ignoring anything that doesnt. Its bad history.

As for Carpentier-Levinsky: It was stated quite freely BEFORE that fight that it was fixed. The result itself is suspicious enough. To that point Carpentier had never defeated a world class fighter. In Levinsky he was fighting an excellent defensive fighter who was also durable and who made a career out of making it to the final bell if he couldnt win. Carpentier had never once shown that he could KO that type of fighter. Furthermore that fight was setup solely for the purpose of giving Carpentier some legitimacy in facing Dempsey. His exhibition tour of the previous summer had been a disaster in that the vast majority of the fans who actually showed up for it came away with the impression that Carpentier, while handsome, was much too small and fragile for Dempsey. As a result it was no coincidence that they matched him with a guy who was one of Dempsey's best KO victims and had some claim to a title as well. When the fight was over the press was free in their condemnation of it and an investigation was launched into it. Then guess what happens next? Carpentier signs to fight Dempsey and also signs a contract stating he wont fight anyone else until that fight (god forbid someone beat him before Rickard made his $$$). None of these factors was even close to being apparent in Dempsey-Flynn. That fight was publicized enough from several different outlets and not a single whiff of a fix from anyone until years later and the Dempsey mythologizing was in full swing trying to make him out to be a monster.

With Moorer-Foreman Ive always said Im convinced it was, Ive never stated that categorically it was. In that fight you had a fat ex champion well past his prime who hadnt shown an ability to beat any live body he had faced. He was fighting a smaller yet talented southpaw who basically lucked into the title and with fighters like Bowe, Holy (who he got gifted from), Tyson, and Lewis around he wasnt going to last long. In Foreman Bob Arum had a cash cow that if he could complete his Cinderella story would be one of the most bankable fighters on the planet. Moorer never would. Arum illustrated later that he was willing to pay boatloads of money to keep Foreman champion when he paid somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 just to get totally undeserving Axel Schulz rated so that Foreman could defend against a soft touch. When Schulz dominated Foreman and beat him easily and Foreman's hand was raised you cant tell me that Arum didnt spread some of the wealth to the judges as well. If hes willing to go to those lengths just for a safe defense against a nobody dont you think its possible Moorer was paid off to cash out? We also have the benefit of seeing Moorer easily beat Foreman in that fight round after round and then suddenly stop and open his guard up, get hit with a lazy 1-2 and drop down like he was looking for a soft place to land. Sorry but I dont buy it.


With Tunney-Madden the evidence is ample. First, Tunney-Madden was setup by design to put Tunney in the ring with a guy that Wills went the distance with. By KOing Madden Tunney could claim that he had accomplished something Wills couldnt and thus was a better challenger. This is exactly what he did and exactly what his plan was as he testified to it in court in the 1930s. Madden, not Tunney, who was a journeyman was paid a massive amount of money for that fight. Far outweighing his status, the marquee value of the fight, and the venue at which it was held. Nevermind that Tunney was the star fighter in the fight, not Madden. Shortly thereafter Madden's manager admitted that Madden had been paid under the table to lay down and tried to claim his managerial % which led to a dispute between he and Madden when Madden refused to pay. Furthermore, once again, immediately surrounding the fight were rumors of a fix.


Again, unlike Levinsky, Madden, and Moorer there was nothing on the line, no big titles, no big money, nothing at stake. Dempsey was too much of a nobody for anyone to wager heavily that he was that much of a favorite over Flynn and Flynn was too shot for anyone to be trying to move him into a better position (nevermind that beating Dempsey wouldnt have won him any higher standing anyway). In those other fights there was actually a reason to fix the fight. In the Dempsey fight there wasnt, there were no rumors swirling around until years later when it benifitted Dempsey to look like he couldnt be knocked out. There simply is no evidence, even circumstantial of that fight being fixed and no reason for it to be fixed. Dempsey was never unbeatable. He was always human and at that point in his career he was still developing and had a ways to go, **** like that happens all of the time. If you can bring me better evidence than some angry drug addled w-hore's word (who was actually trying to extort money from him to begin with and it all snowballed into a court case) and the words of a couple of guys years later who had a tenuous insight into the events at best (and whose stories deviate from first hand accounts), in short something that actually doesnt pass the smell test, then i will consider it but I doubt youll find anything that I havent already read or heard and I see nothing to make me think twice about anyone involved except the people whose motivations have to be questioned in calling it a fix.

 

No Moorer didn't take a dive against Foreman and it's preposterous to think he did. The title was worth 10s of millions especially with a cash out defense against Tyson that would have loomed for Moorer. Even Bowe or Holyfield rematches would of been huge for him. For him to take a dive you're talking paying him 10s of millions, something Foreman never mad from the title. Simply put it doesn't make any business sense to put the fix in. Not unless Moorer got half the profits from the Foreman Grill.

Yes the judges were obviously bought off against Schulz and Schulz did beat Foreman for any unbiased eyes. But that's what they do with fighters who aren't protected by big promoters.

Moorer got lazy and sloppy and stood in front of an old but slow puncher and paid the consequences. Fixes happen very often in boxing, this wasn't one of them.

 

I will let Klompton and PowerPuncher duke it out, then take on the winner!

 

Bias is the only reason to dispute the official result.

 

There is also curiosity!

 

Thats like saying you can invalidate the result of the civil war by casting doubt on the idea that the north won. It doesnt work like that. Holocaust deniers have been trying that tactic for years. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist. Not the person adhering to the accepted official result. You may not like that because it puts all of the burden on you but thats the position youve chosen.

 

that's a poor example, there is conclusive proof of both those things happening, you don't have conclusive proof the fight was on the level. A much better example is two people arguing about the existence of the christian god, neither can prove their cases but they are too invested to admit there is a chance they're wrong, the people in the middle saying 'there's no proof of god/dempsey diving so while i think it unlikely it can't honestly be denied either' are the only unbiased ones.

I can go with the official result but be open to the idea of a fix, no invalidating, no conspiracy, just the common sense to see that an unfilmed not that important fight might be fixed.

 

No thats a poor example. We dont know there is a god. We know a fight took place between Dempsey and Flynn because there is ample proof of it. We know Dempsey was knocked out and that this is the official result. The burden of proof is on the person disputing that and there is no proof whatsoever that this official result should have an asterisk by it.

 

edit, it's a pointless discussion, I think the fight was probably on the level too, I also think you are biased about a number of fighters, including dempsey, but you aint gonna change so lets leave it.

 

No, the burden of proof is always upon the person asserting something.

You therefore assume the burden of proof, when you assert that the fight was on the level, or indeed if you assert that it was not on the level.

You don't need to meet any burden of proof to withhold judgment either way, which is what I am doing.