Hey just for the hell of it, let's start another Dempsey thread.

although i do think that this topic has been discussed way too much and in the end nobody agrees on anything

 

The only way I'll add anything substantial to this thread is if I go and copy-paste a load of stuff I've written on other threads.

There's quite a volume of stuff answering just about everything pertaining to the "Dempsey debate".

The ESSENCE of my position is this: -
I rate Dempsey highly, and can back it up. Others rate him lower, and can back it up.
I agree with those people over the facts, but realize that agreeing on the facts does not necessitate forming an identical judgment.
I dont take the differences in placings on a list as seriously as some of you guys do. Dempsey anywhere inside the top 15 seems fair to me.

 

Boxrec lists that Darcy thing as a NYSAC title fight on a technicality, I think.

But I've never seen it listed elsewhere. It was an exhibition.

 

It is mostly speculation, but the interesting part is that the original report right after the fight said: Jack Dempsey of Salt Lake was knocked out in 10 seconds after the men shook hands. Flynn pushed Dempsey’s guard with his right arm and swung with his left to the jaw. The Salt Lake man sank to his knees and over for the count and it was 20 seconds after Flynn was declared the winner before Dempsey regained his feet.”

It shows no signs of the crowd yelling "Fix!" or whatever, nor is the KO reported as suspicious or anything.


This was in 1917 when hardly anyone knew Dempsey. Of course, when Dempsey was world-famous later, the claims of "fix" came out.


The most funny thing is a report that came in 1920 where they were asking eye-witnesses. One of them describes every little detail of the KO. Yeah, right. There is no way one can remember those kind of things so precise over a 3 year period when having seen it only once (live, there was no video) AND having considered it rather insignificant at the time, considering Dempsey was not known yet.



I'm not saying that it was a real fight for sure, but i don't think the evidence for a fix is strong at all. I would say innocent until proven guilty of a fix.

 

I think basicaly there is a lot more positive evidence for Dempsey Flyn being a dive than there is for Clay Liston II being a dive.

Rather than try to draw a firm conclusion based on the circumstances it is sensible just to list them as suspicious.

Of course if it was a dive then that puts Dempseys chin in a verry diferent context perhaps putting it up with the best of all time.

 

Here is the difference: It is crystal clear from film that Liston took a dive. Whether it was a fix or a quit job is not clear, but it certainly wasn't a real KO.

Why is it so hard to believe this fight was legit, anyway? If i told you that a man fought Briggs, Bruno, Ruddock, Tua, Klitschko, Morrison, Tyson and Holyfield 2x without going down a single time, then had one fight which was a second round knockout loss without film and a few years later stories of fixes coming up, how would that sound?

Firpo nearly KO'd Dempsey and a mediocre middleweight knocked him down 9 times when he was green. I don't think it's such a stretch that he suffered a fluke knockout defeat when on a busy schedule and coming up. And neither did that newspaper article after the fight.

Having faced only a couple of 200lb+ punchers, of which pretty much only Firpo landed (and nearly knocked him out) and probably Morris, i would doubt that. Lewis, Tyson, Holmes et al had to compete with fighters and punchers well over 210 pounds in a lot of fights, and those were actually good enough to consistently beat their smaller counterparts.

 

Personally, I think any fighter who has had 80-100 professional fights or more has more than likely been involved in a "fix" or two, certainly in those days, but most probably nowadays too.

One or two of Dempsey's wins could have been fixes, or influenced by crooked shenanigans, and the 1st round loss to Fireman Jim Flynn is a suspicious result.

It's okay saying "innocent 'til proven guilty" but realistically most fixes have been successfully covered up. The truth doesn't always come out, the culprits keep their mouths shut, and if and when the truth comes out it's too late to know whether in fact it is true or false.

Professional boxing didn't get its reputation for being crooked from nowhere.

That's another reason why I take early records and results with a pinch of salt.

You hear about these poverty-stricken boxers in the first half of the 20th century, with gangsters for managers, I think we should assume that loads of results were fixed.

 

Maybe because the eyes don't lie.:yep

Crude film technology is not going to effect how their stances looked, which were primitive and all wrong. Yet you guys can find ways to excuse your old time favourite's as nothing more than pure examples of apologists.

 

Johnson would beat him.

Liston, Ali, Louis, Holmes and Tyson KO him in 1 round.:good

 

RING magazine and BOXING ILLUSTRATED recognized Spinks as heavyweight champion until Tyson beat him.

And those who recognize Spinks as champion have a precise date at which he became champion. Namely, when he beat Holmes

Those who recognise Tyson are often a bit vague, they offer different versions.

Personally, I dont care. I'm not even sure Larry Holmes was the "real champion" in the early 80s. The alphabet crooks utter scum of boxing destroyed the idea of the world's heavyweight championship in the late 70s, as they had tried to do back in the 60s.

 

Well, it would help if you provided me a newspaper article right after the fight, not the hindsight rewritten stuff, that said it was probably a fix. Maybe they're there, but from what i've read, there was not even a hint towards a fix. It was described as a legit quick knockout, just like Dempsey vs Fulton.

Good fighter over 210 pounds, then.

That's true.