Fireman Flynn KO 1 Jack Dempsey

There's disputing it, and there's allowing for the possibility that it was crooked.

I allow for the possibility, in almost every fight I haven't seen, and many of those that I have seen.
Especially ones with rumours around them, or involve characters that were found to be crooked around other fights.
Which is the case here.

Bias is the only reason to dismiss all possibility of a fix and uphold the official result so strongly. :deal

 

Are you serious ?

It is generally accepted that boxing matches are sometimes fixed.

It's also accepted - and this is commonsense reasoning - that in all probability many of the fixed results are recorded as official results and that it's hard to prove or discover for sure that they WERE fixed.

To doubt the complete integrity of boxing is in NO WAY the same as denying the holocaust or doubting that the north won the US civil war.

 

As you know, it was only a small fight.
We can't possibly know how many small fights are fixed for the benefit of a single bet, for small change.

It doesn't have to be million-dollar big-city gambling syndicates and big-time fights. In fact, it's more likely to occur around the struggling or indebted fighters and managers in smaller fights.

You just don't know. It might have been fixed.

What are your true motives to dismiss the idea that fights like this might be fixed ?

 

Truly, whether the Flynn 1 round ko of young Jack Dempsey was "legit" or not
doesn't alter Dempsey's place in heavyweight history ONE WAY OR THE OTHER... Why for example is Joe Gans place in lightweight history NOT lessened though Gans was kod by a FW Terry McGovern in a suspicious fight ?. Why was the esteemed Joey Giardello's legacy not tarnished though Joey was flattened by a Harold Green in Joey's 31st bout ?. Why is the
Bronx Bull Jake LaMotta's legacy as a great MW, not tarnished today, though he was severely kod by a Billy Fox, also in suspicious circumstances ?.
My point is to show as best as I can, that a Jack Dempsey loss at the hands of
a tough journeyman Fireman Jim Flynn, is CONSTANTLY brought up by a FEW posters to illustrate how inept this great heavyweight was at his best...
Why Dempsey and not the others ???...T'aint fair I say...

 

Im always amused that people misconstrue me not kissing Dempsey's ass and buying into the myth that Im biased against him.

 

I won't use the word biased, but you certainly have some blind spots.

Once you get an idea into your head, you almost seem to develop tunnel vision sometimes, and then confirmation bias starts to set in.

 

by not kissing his ass you mean constantly putting down him and his opponents?

remember when you were so desperate to try and put down carpentier you tried to argue that siki not following through on a fix and jumping a physically and mentally unprepared carpentier meant he was so **** he couldn't win a fixed fight, despite the fact that the fight clearly wasn't fixed and the circumstance of a man entering the ring thinking it would be a fix when it wasn't is actually a harder fight than if he was prepared. you are a biased clown.

this is an entire page of different people asking how you know the fight wasn't fixed, you answer, constantly ignoring the question and writing bull**** like the above

 

it's a great example, both the does god exist argument and the did dempsey dive argument have two sides who are convinced they are right, yet neither can prove their side of the argument. your holocaust denier argument was terrible tho, because there is factual evidence of that, unlike this, where you don't have factual evidence for dempsey diving. you should have stopped at showing there is no evidence for it being fixed, but you are so arrogant and biased you can't see the difference between fact and likelyhood.

what do you mean its poor because we don't know there's a god? how could there be an argument about it if we knew there was one? your'e just talking nonsense there.

who said anything about the fight never having taken place? no one, you are just avoiding admitting you can't prove it was on the level, because you are a biased clown who can't see any other point of view, however much common sense is involved in accepting that an unfilmed, unimportant fight might have been fixed.

burden of proof, what i will now prove is that the fight could potentially have been fixed; it was a sports event that people bet on and we can't see on film. done, i have proved my statement, now prove yours (rhetorical question, you can't, you just desperatly want to believe dempsey didn't dive because it supports your obvious bias).

 

You are correct. Demspey apologists assert that the fight was fixed. The burden of proof is on them.

You are incorrect. I take it you havent spent much time in school. If the burden of proof is constantly on the person who is standing by the established norm then we would be constantly re-evaluating every accepted historical position. Ive already illustrated this but you dont like that this puts the burden on you so you reject it. It doesnt work like that. If you have something that refutes the official result then bring it forward. Otherwise the official result stands and its up to you to produce something else. I dont have to assert anything because Im simply standing by the official result: Dempsey LKO1 Flynn.

No you just have to stick your head in the sand, sit on the fence, and pretend you are above the same argument you are actually taking part in. :roll:

 

Dont blame me if youre argument has no merit and if you choose to believe Carpentier didnt fix the Siki fight then go right ahead. Carpentier admitted it. Thats all I need. Unfortunately for obtuse people who need to convince themselves that Dempsey was unbeatable and Carpentier was not a euro-fraud no amount of logic, common sense, or proof will change their minds.

 

i didn't say that at all, the fact you think i did despite having the words i wrote in front of you is very strange (at best).

what i said was that the fight was arranged to be fixed, then siki renneged on it, to anyone without bias that means the actual fight wasn't fixed and it puts carpentier at a disadvantage, only an intellectually dishonest fool like you would think it means carpentier was too **** to win a fixed fight. the result is actual proof that whatever was discussed beforehand, the fight wasn't fixed for carpentier, because he didn't win.

where is proof that dempsey didn't dive? you are yet to post it.

find any post of mine that says dempsey or carpentier were those things and i'll say i'm biased, since i am generally negative about both, particullarly carpentier, who was pretty ****, you are just talking bull**** again.

did you just claim some allegiance to logic and common sense? that's hysterical

 

I dont need proof that Dempsey DIDNT take a dive you dumb ****ing moron, Im not the one flying in the face of the accepted result. Where is the proof that General Lee didnt win the Civil War?? Where is the proof that aliens dont control the government? Jesus christ some boxing fans are the most ignorant, gullible, morons Ive ever come across. Go to school some day and see exactly how far you get with such arguments. Nevermind, you dont need to. The fact that you dont understand the burden of proof tells me all I need to know. Have picking up my garbage on tuesday morning. :thumbsup

 

klompton2,
I'm not even sure if you're being serious now.

If you're upholding every little boxing result as legitimate in the same way historians/everyone knows that the north won the US Civil War, then your method is even worse that I thought.

I can only assume you're partially joking. :good

 

I've already explained, but once more for klompton.

1. The "accepted historical position" relevant in this case is that boxing matches have sometimes been fixed. Fighters have taken "dives" and do take dives.

2. Commonsense dictates that, in all probability, many, perhaps most, cases of fixes and dives have gone undetected and enter the record books as the "official result".

3. The smaller, less reported, unfilmed, obscurer the fight, the less we can be certain in our opinions about them being FIXED or LEGIT.

Therefore,

4. It is absolute legitimate to say Dempsey v Flynn might have been fixed. (Both fights actually)

 

so you don't need proof to call something a fact? the result isn't in question, it is ko1 flynn, however numerous people are asking a fair question about how that result came about, in the historical context of a very corrupt sport, the official result is absolutley no proof that the fight was on the level.

i have shown a simple argument that proves my belief the fight may have been fixed, not certainly, just maybe. you have not put forward an argument to support your position, that the fight was on the level and there is no possible doubt.

the proof the south didn't win the war is that the north won and established the government that still exists (although i don't know enough about that war or the paperwork resulting from it to deny some argument could be made).

there is no proof aliens don't control the government, but i would say a boxing match being fixed is far more likely.

lets look at the last 2 historical questions i saw discussed; a, did dempsey dive v flynn? and b, did the turtle ships used by korea in the imjin war have metal plates on the roofs?

a: the recorded result of the fight is ko1 flynn, but the result has been called into question - the historian(you) does a pretty good job of showing that there is no firsthand evidence to catargorically show the fight was fixed, then he takes a leap of faith to use this to mean that the fight was definatley on the level and arrogantly defends his position without any evidence and in the face of obvious common sense saying the fight could have been fixed.

b: the accepted norm is that these ships were covered with metal plates to defend against arrows, cannons and musketfire, this however has been called into question - the historian does a good job showing that with most of their country occupied the koreans had lost their mines and didn't have enough metal, and that there are no firsthand sources who say the ships had metal plate roofs. the historian then admits that since no ships or photos of ships survived this is just a thoery, albeit one that fits the evidence better than the other side.

one of these is a argument i can respect, by someone showing no obvious bias, and not pushing his side further than the evidence allows, one of them is an arrogant fool being intellectually dishonest and throwing around personnel insults because he is getting called out on his bull**** and complete lack of common sense by numerous people.