Floyd Patterson vs Jack Dempsey

A talented and skilful come forward fighter with lightning fast hands and a dangerous offence is going to pose some serious problems to anyone near his own size. Remind me which fighters who match that description Dempsey actually defeated.

It sure did raise eyebrows, though many of those were over whether it was a fake or not.

That and other people who were actually at the fight and gave no indication that it had been a fix (you can read some of the next day reports here). That's compelling enough to me. You don't think Dempsey's own testimony is compelling then?

Other than he'd obviously deny something that was untrue anyway, given that being knocked out in one round by Fireman Jim Flynn wasn't exactly his finest hour, you'd think he'd have every motive for claiming it was a fix.

Why, because a proven liar and unreliable witness said it was a fake? It's her word against Dempsey's and people who were actually at the fight. Do you also believe Dempsey was a woman beater, a pimp who broke in ladies of the night and took cocaine before fights? Maxine said so. The only reason I can think of for giving so much credibility to Maxine's testimony, is you simply want to believe the fight was a fake.

Of course it is. Dempsey clearly had issues handling Meehan, who survived his famous onslaught five times and caused him problems with a busy quick handed swarming style.

Any champ who got staggered, knocked down, knocked out of the ring and damn near KO'd by an extremely limited and unqualified slugger wouldn't escape criticism.

He did a pretty good job of demolishing Archie Moore, who even at that point in his career was eons better than Firpo.

Decent win given Hopkins' past record but come on, the guy was 49 years old and hasn't fought since. Perhaps if Hopkins returns and gets another impressive win, it'll look better. As for Willard, one win over a middling contender when his only other fight in the past seven years was an infamous beatdown hardly makes him an impressive scalp. Especially when he was 41.

Two months after Tate Wills KO'd Kid Norfolk in a well publicised title eliminator. Greb had also won a title eliminator against Gibbons. That Tunney decision was widely considered a robbery.

Did Firpo fight Greb, Tunney, Wills, Norfolk or Gibbons? Beating a 41 year old Willard and a shot Bill Brennan (your description) didn't elevate him over those guys. Firpo turned down a fight with Greb and I doubt he'd have been let anywhere near Tunney or Wills (before he fought Dempsey).

Speaking of sparring partners, Firpo was made to look bad by an ancient Jack Johnson, who was kicked out of his training camp.

I'm left with the general idea that they aren't especially reliable. Did Dempsey have a 73, 75 or 77 inch reach? Regardless, I'm pretty confident saying Dempsey and Patterson were about the same size.

I never said anyone had Meehan down as a title contender. I'm saying his win over Dempsey was considered a bit of an embarrassment and something that could possibly harm his title prospects, hence Kearns trying to paint it as a robbery.

Were Buddy Baer, Jim Braddock and Tony Galento all-time greats?

And when you weigh up the evidence and put all the strands together, it leads me to the conclusion that this will be a much tougher fight for Dempsey than you think.

 

But you'd agree such a fighter would cause Dempsey problems?

Yes I agree Carp had a good right hand which he wobbled Dempsey with. I doubt he hit harder than Patterson though, who would have a solid 20lbs on him and his power was more proven against top heavyweights than Carpentier's was.

A good win, if it were on the level, which is key, as there's significantly more evidence this was a fix than Dempsey-Flynn. Several ringsiders voiced that opinion, not just Carpentier's ex-wife years later.

Neither Dempsey nor Flynn ever said it was a fix. None of the reporters who actually covered the fight voiced the opinion that it was not on the level. There's also the question of what anyone had to gain from fixing that fight. Flynn was a journeyman on his last legs. Dempsey was just an obscure Midwest fighter. There wouldn't have been sufficient interest and money in the fight to make it worth anyone's while fixing. That's pretty conclusive.

But you're still hanging onto the idea that it may have been a fix because of something Dempsey's ex-wife claimed years later. Never mind that her claims of a fix are contradicted by accounts of the fight given by both participants and assorted ringsiders. Never mind that this is the same Maxine who was proven to be a wholly unreliable witness (and later retracted her claims anyway). The same Maxine who also said Dempsey was a draft dodger, a woman beater and a pimp. Do give her the benefit of the doubt on those claims too? You're giving her testimony far more weight than it deserves. It's clutching at straws.

If Patterson was still upright after four rounds it would surely improve his chances, since the majority of Dempsey's knockouts were within four rounds or less. Dempsey's KO ratio falls sharply in fights that went past the fourth.

But then I'm not arguing that Dempsey has no chance of winning. You are arguing that Patterson has no chance.

Seven KO defeats in 220 fights in a career spanning four decades against the best of several divisions. I'd say he was pretty durable.

But still, he was 49 years old, and he looked it. Fighters can only cheat age for so long.

Benefiting from careful matchmaking (ie being steered away from opponents who might beat him) is not the same as being deserving. Firpo was not more deserving than Wills or Greb. He didn't beat either of them, and what he was doing wasn't more impressive than what they were doing.

It was sufficient to have Kearns worried about it.

Wouldn't you agree that that description could also be applied to most of the men who knocked Patterson down?

Clearly.

 

Brennan, Firpo, Carpentier and Meehan are not what I would classify as defensive specialists, and they all gave him problems in different ways. Would you agree that a same sized boxer puncher with good skills, very fast hands and KO power, is at the very least going to be problematic?

I can't prove it was a fake. All you can do is weigh up the evidence and make a decision. There is more compelling evidence that this one wasn't on the level than Dempsey vs Flynn, so yes I think there are good reasons to put an asterisk against it.

Betting big money on Fighter A to win in round one doesn't mean anything unless there's someone willing to take the bet and a sizeable number of people betting against that outcome. I can't see a low level fight in the Midwest between two fairly obscure fighters generating sufficient interest and money to make it worth fixing. One or both fighters would have to be paid from the proceeds, as would the fixers and anyone else involved. And who benefits from an old journeyman beating a virtual unknown? Can't see it myself.

In that case, we don't really know that Dempsey didn't have loaded gloves against Willard. Anyone who would have known for sure is now long dead. All we can do is make an educated guess based on all the evidence. I don't know that Dempsey didn't have loaded gloves, though given all the evidence I don't believe he did.

With Dempsey-Flynn, on the one hand there are the two fighters and ringside accounts of the right, and on the other we have Maxine Cates. Based on that it's clear which way the evidence is pointing.

Of course they contradict her. The accounts of both fighters and ringsiders give no indication that the fight was crooked. All we have is her word several years later when she was doing her best to smear Dempsey and gave testimony that was shown to be unreliable.

I take it you're also open to believing that Dempsey was a woman beater, a draft dodger, a pimp and took cocaine before fights?

There's not actually much evidence of that. He had one KO after round 10. Most of his KOs were within the first four rounds.

The idea that a Patterson victory is "highly unlikely" is absurd, all things considered. Dempsey was not significantly better than Patterson, wasn't bigger than Patterson, didn't beat better fighters than Patterson beat, and didn't beat anyone like Patterson. Had they never fought, people today would laugh at the idea of Fireman Jim KO'ing Dempsey, yet it happened.

The WBO once ranked a dead man, so anything is possible in boxing.

Yet they were rated over him, so surely he'd have to beat them or out-perform them to overtake them, and he didn't do either.

The Tate bouts obviously didn't do much to hurt Wills' standing as he won a title eliminator shortly afterwards and didn't lose again for four years.

Liston and Johannson account for the bulk of Patterson's knockdowns. Both clearly had punching credentials. Then there's people like Ellis, Quarry and Bonavena, who weren't featherfists and were clearly elite. Personally I think it's a stretch to draw a massive distinction between them based on a couple of other flash knockdowns in fights he was otherwise dominating.

On this we're agreed.

And this.