In the Ring With Jack Dempsey - Part I: The Making of a Champion

Jess Willard was extremely slow while Dempsey looked lightning quick in their bout. As a result, Willard was totally unable to stop Dempsey's onslaught or even land a meaningful punch, resulting in Willard being essentially a human punching bag. I thought that Willard being vastly slower than Dempsey was much more of a factor than Dempsey's punching power in the bout. Dempsey's punching power certainly made the situation even worse for Willard. While reading about allegation that Dempsey had "loaded gloves" in the bout, I strongly lean towards the belief that that allegation is bogus, especially when someone like Jack Kearns was a major source for such information. Dempsey certainly didn't need "loaded gloves" to give Willard a terrible beating.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Not for long .. Klompton, the premiere Marciano scholar on the planet ( just ask him ) is deep into a book on Rocky to be published Winter 2049.

 

This thread seemed to go off the rails concerning the book. My reaction reading it is that Adam gives the info from the original sources and lets the reader reach his own conclusions for the most part. Here is some of his evidence on Willard's condition:

There is mention that Willard had been training on the west coast before coming to Toledo. "He already had lost 15 lbs. in the two months since he began training." P 387. This is a claim from Willard.

"Willard was working out about 30 minutes each day. Some said that was not enough. They also said he was taking it too easy on his sparring partners. Others said he was working out in the morning as well, and if he went harder on his sparring partners, he would lose them." p 403

June 17th about Willard--"The camp said he would abandon road work at this point. Some said this was unwise, while others said he knew himself better than anyone and knew what was best for him. The fight was about two weeks away." p 420

"George Pulford said form players believed that Dempsey would enter the ring in much better condition than the champion, and would win within the limit." p 432

"Famous respected sportswriter Tad Dorgan believed Willard was too soft. He had no trainers, but decided upon his own course of training. Tad thought that was a mistake." p 436

"One thing few noted was that although his pace and intensity was less, Willard sparred more often and more rounds than Dempsey did."----p 437

(my own comment--folks were paying to see Willard spar. He seems to have drawn bigger crowds than Dempsey. One crowd of 4800 is mentioned. There was money in public sparring for Willard.)

June 17th. "Willard boxed 11 rounds" p 419 (at least seven sparring partners are mentioned at one time or another, including Chip, Heinan, Hemple, Monaghan, etc. It is made pretty clear that Dempsey had much better sparring partners.)

"On Sunday, June 22, boxing before a huge crowd of about 4800 people, . . . Willard sparred 8 or 9 rounds with Hemple, Chip, Scott, and Monahan." p 426

It is noted that the odds fell from 10-7 Willard to something like even money.

My conclusion is Willard was in decent shape, but not the shape he should have tried to be in given his age and long layoff.

 

Even a biased, unfair book on Dempsey could be a useful corrective to all the myth-laden, hero-worshipping hagiographies, if it supports its claims with compelling evidence.

(This is not a dig at "Making of a Champion," which I haven't read).

 

If a book has compelling evidence for its claims, it would probably cease to be "biased and unfair".


(EDIT :Having said that, one way to write a biased account is by way of ommission. So, I suppose the evidence and some claims within a book might all be sound generally, but with specific things ommitted to point towards ridiculous conclusions and support an unfair, twisted interpretation of the overall historical picture.)

 

This exactly. By not being biased, Pollack is being accused of being biased! This was different from his Jeffries book, where in the first sentence he states "This is the story of one of the greatest heavyweight champions who ever lived". That's an opinion, not a fact. With Dempsey he is much more cautious and I believe the book is better because of it.

 

This seems to be the biggest problem with boxing histories, in my limited experience. These books are often passion projects written by fans, and so the authors cherry-pick evidence to support their narratives, knowing that 99% of even the most devoted classic boxing fans will never take any initiative to research primary sources directly.

I can put up with biased opinions and suspect conclusions if the author provides new evidence and information that others have missed or intentionally omitted.

 

To any and all anti dempsey posters herein, keep f ing dreaming or as jack sharkey said in 1939, " I never thought a man could hit so hard "

 

At least twice Adam has comments that a physician checked Willard and,

"He had lost some teeth, but no facial bones were broken. A physician made that statement."

As I said before, kind of hard to buy Willard would have fought Floyd Johnson and Firpo with an unset broken cheekbone.

Even if the bone moved in the 1960's, is it possible it came from a later injury? Willard was in his eighties, and old folks do often fall and hurt themselves.

I certainly can't say anything for sure, but I think there is a good basis for skepticism.

 

You were the one who drew Adam into this, not me. You were trying to support your moronic position by using his book as a backstop. As I said before, YOU were the one who stated that Willard was well trained and dangerous in the second and third rounds. Just like many of your other moronic comments I pointed out how stupid this was. You tried to use Adams book as a support. Sorry but if Adams book makes that argument then its moronic too. I never stated categorically that it made such an assertion.

I also pointed out that its important to the facts from the opinions, then and now. The facts speak volumes and do so far more adequately than the opinions of anyone then or now. Thats the job of a historian and I wouldnt expect you, an amateur film maker and hobbyist who has, time and again, proven himself to be anything but a historian (despite calling yourself one) to be able to do that. So as I said, my beef is with your asinine comments.

Beyond that all I said, and I stand by it, is I disagree with the direction he took with some of his books, particularly the Johnson book and the Dempsey as he relayed to me. If you think thats bashing his books then so be it. I couldnt care less about your opinion which has been shown to be idiotic multiple times. Im also not afraid to criticize a book if it deserves criticism. I couldnt care less if you or anyone else thinks its borne out of jealousy. That doesnt change that my criticisms are valid and if you care to go head to head on why they arent then so be it. You wont though because we both know youd be in way over your head.

Do I think he's biased? Of course I do. Ive made that no secret. He makes the mistake that historians who are actually taught and trained in their field shy away from. He falls in love with his subject increasingly as hes tried to migrate his books from reference sources to biography. Marvin Hart was an underrated warrior, Jack Johnson was a poor victim, Jack Dempsey simply couldnt defend his championship against Wills but he would have if he could and he would have won. Please. Give me a break. I disagree with how he colors his sources to suit his argument, particularly his dealing with Johnsons trial and with the race riots post Jeffries. Ive said many times he mischaracterized both instances very poorly in my opinion and I think anyone who has studied those riots or read the trial transcripts would agree. If you think he told both sides of that story then you dont know what the **** you are talking about.

If you think sprinkling his Dempsey book with examples of Jim Crow America isnt his ham handed attempt at setting up an explanation for why Dempsey ducked Wills then again, you dont know your ass from your elbow. Unfortunately for you and him I do. He contacted me and wanted to discuss his book which we did. He explained to me his thoughts on the Wills situation (and Ive made no secret for years that Ive been writing a Wills book) and I dont agree with him in any way shape or form. Dempsey wasnt some rube being lead around by the nose by Rickard and Kearns. His hands werent tied behind his back by Jim Crow America and pretending as he often does that every white man in America, or even the majority of white men were rabid racists and/or white supremacist's is patently false.

Pretending that because Dempsey fought black ham and eggers early in his career when he couldnt pick and choose his opposition somehow made him a secret champion of civil rights and that he really harbored no fear of losing to Wills is the most ridiculous argument. Similar to how Dempsey employing black sparring partners doesnt make him any less racist than a jim crow plantation owner who employs a black cook or a black chauffeur.

You have to ignore that Wills had an incredible amount of support nationwide from the fans and press, the vast majority. You have to ignore that promoters not only all over this country, but in several other countries where race wasnt a factor offered Dempsey fortunes to fight Wills and were always met with silence. You have to ignore that Kearns went to incredible lengths to give the false impression that Dempsey was willing to fight Wills and that Dempsey knowingly went along with the ruse. You have to ignore that Dempsey left Kearns in 1925 and continued to utilize the same tactics he learned from Kearns to duck Wills including signing contracts that werent worth the paper they were printed on when he KNEW he wasnt going to fight Wills and even enlisted his friend Promoter Floyd Fitzsimmons to assist in the ruse. You have to ignore that if Kearns really was a stumbling block and Dempsey really wanted to fight Wills he could have left Kearns at any time. He did leave Kearns, mid contract, when he chose to and it had nothing to do with Wills. You have to ignore that Kearns, while still acting as Dempsey's manager after their split signed Dempsey to fight Wills as a means of revenge (why if Kearns was so confident of Dempsey beating Wills would he sign Dempsey to face him as a means of revenge???) You have to ignore that Dempsey drew the color line to avoid fighting Wills with no insistence from Kearns immediately after winning the title. Kearns wasnt even present when Dempsey made that announcement himself. You have to ignore that Dempsey told Greb publicly he could have avoided the loss of his title by refusing to fight a black man (Flowers). You have to ignore that while the excuse has been used that Rickard wouldnt promote a mixed race match (which wasnt true) that there were numerous other promoters offering bigger money than Rickard could and they were met with silence. Dempsey wasnt an exclusive Rickard property and had no problem fighting for other promoters, regardless of how inexperienced, when it suited him. You have to ignore that Dempsey's own business manager outlined how Dempsey avoided Wills. You have to ignore that it was testified under oath that the Dempsey-Wills signing in 1925 was a complete fabrication in order to keep the NYSAC off Dempsey's back while he negotiated a Tunney fight which he accepted before signing for Wills at Rickards urging because Rickard convinced him that Tunney was less dangerous. I could sit here all day and write this stuff but when someone tries to argue against the mountain of evidence to the contrary in favor of "everybody was a racist in the 1920s" and either isnt aware of the mountain of evidence to the contrary or doesnt want to hear it because it doesnt jive with the narrative theyve set on Im done. So yeah, when Im told thats not the direction an author has chosen to go with his book and he argues why Dempsey's hands were supposedly tied, I think Im justified in my criticism. I get it, the Dempsey myth sells better. I get it, Jack Johnson the civil rights icon is more sexy than Jack Johnson the *******/pariah. So when a guy like you who comes on here and acts like hes just seen and read about Willard's training camp for the first time and gets his training bra in a twist because someone illustrates how wrong you are when you try to sing Willards praises dont go shooting the messenger. He may know more than the "film maker/historian" LOL

 

Yeah getting hit in the nuts sucks.

 

Awww boohoo, somebody is scared their heroes wont be written about as being 10 feet tall and bullet proof. As for the length of time it takes me to put out a book: Its not a race. Id rather get the story right than rush out the book. Im in no hurry for anyone. Anyone on this forum could, once a year, squeeze out the poorly crafted **** that make up 95% of boxing books on the market. Im more interested in quality than quantity.

 

This content is protected

 

What sources on the race riots would you find credible? Isn't the consensus view among historians that many of the white explanations for racist violence in that era usually rested upon manufactured or grossly exaggerated excuses?

 

Tommy Gibbons wasn't convinced he was the puncher the press made him out to be.

I don't think anyone is going to honestly argue that Jack couldn't punch. That's silly. But most folks who watch the sport will recognize that, like Tyson, it was his speed and aggression that delivered the power he had which caused the problems for his opponents.