Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

How reliable do you consider Kearns to be?

Serious doubt has been cast on some of his alegations against Dempsey, notably the loaded gloves story.

Not saying that Dempsey was a saint of course.

 

thanks for clarifying your source dude :good

 

Aside from the story about Jack tanking the Flynn fight, this is all news to me. Kearns is not exactly Honest Abe, but who knows?

 

You have to take everything that Jack Kearns said with a big grain of salt.

- Chuck Johnston

 

There is strong evidence of Kearns lying to sully Dempsey’s name on at least one occasion (the loaded gloves story).

I don’t think that Dempsey was a saint by any means, but I would want sources other than Kearns to corroborate a specific.

 

Kearns said that when he had been sacked by Dempsey and was suing him,every corner Dempsey turned had a process server behind it.

Kearn as also said he covered Dempsey's hands with plaster of paris for the Willard fight.

"Shortly before his death in 1963, Kearns approved the final draft of his memoirs and secured a deal with Sports Illustrated to publish two excerpts from the book. In one of the of excerpts, Kearns claimed that Dempsey's hand wraps were treated with plaster of Paris. Dempsey denied that his gloves were loaded and sued Time Inc., publishers of Sports Illustrated, for $3 million. In September of 1965, they settled out of court for an undisclosed amount"




Kearns was a proven liar.



He was a greedy, bitter old man who had been left on the sidelines,no one believed him then or now, you want to believe him because you are a Dempsey hater .

"One week later, Maxine Cates met with assistant United States attorney Charles Thomas (who had been assigned to investigate the Dempsey matter). At that meeting, she recanted her charges but it was too late. On February 24, 1920, Dempsey was indicted on a charge of conspiracy to evade the draft.

The trial began on June 8, 1920, and lasted for five days. Dempsey later called them “the five saddest days of my life.” The defense established that the fighter had in fact sent money to Maxine, his parents, and other family members during the time in question and also that he had helped raise $330,000 for the government by participating in several fund-raising bouts. After deliberating for less than ten minutes, the jury returned a verdict of “not guilty.”


In short there is zero evidence /proof of any of your accusations and you should be ashamed of yourself for making them about a dead man who cannot defend himself..

 

To be fair, he's a part of history. People talk about historical figures.

 

Reasonable, but it doesn't change my opinion that Dempsey ko's Louis in a couple of rounds,therefore I rank him higher.
Louis is the more complete fighter,but Dempsey gets him quick imo.

 

While I agree in large part with the criticism levelled at him for not fighting Wills and Greb, I think that we are seeing a gross historical overcorrection.

Jack Dempsey is becoming the Field Marshal Douglas Haig of boxing.

When Haig died in 1927, he was feted as a military genius, who had saved Britain from almost certain defeat. A few decades later, his name became a byword for military incompetence.

The truth usually lies somewhere between in these matters.

 

Dempsey stated Cates dislocated her jaw falling over as she entered their hotel room,a doctor reset it without anaesthetic.
Her claim that Dempsey had hit her was made after they were separated and soon to be divorced.

Dempsey ," coming up in really rough circumstances," does not mean he was a ***** master,white slaver,or broke in virgins in brothels, all of which you have in the past stated.

You believe Kearns and Cates,two proven liars.
In the absence of a shred of proof to the contrary I will believe Dempsey.


Oh and Dempsey married Cates on the 9th October 1916, since he was born in June 1895 he would have been 21 years old when they wed. . Just one more inaccuracy.

 

There are some well intentioned posters on mainly ESB who are skeptical of the vaunted merits of Jack Dempsey as an all-time great heavyweight,
based on the fact that he for whatever reason never fought two men, namely Harry Wills and Harry Greb. They conveniently omit the fact that Dempsey and Harry Wills DID sign for a bout promoted by a Michigan promoter, who
COULD NOT COME UP WITH THE CONTRACTED MONEY, thus canceling the bout...Even Harry Wills who deserved this title bout NEVER blamed Jack Dempsey personally for eventually not getting this match. Seems to me that Mr.Wills was somehow more informed than today's detractors of Jack Dempsey, 90 years after the fact. And then there is the subject of another
HARRY, not getting a title shot, the great middleweight Harry Greb.
Greb in my eyes HAD to be the greatest P4P fighter ever based on his
fabulous 300 fight [yes I said 300] career beating everyone from his era.
But I do not blame Jack Dempsey's braintrust for avoiding this fight as it would be a NO WIN SITUATION. If Greb could avoid the powerful attack by the larger Dempsey, and eke out a decision and kaput goes the millions of
dollars the Dempsey camp loses. If as I believe strongly, Dempsey catches up to Greb and stops him, the boxing public would bellow "why don't you pick on a guy your size, instead of a middleweight" ?...Truly a "no win" situation for any heavyweight fighting a middleweight...
Finally, what separates me who has read tons of information of Dempsey
for many decades, trust the boxing wisdom and experience of myriads of
ex fighters, trainers and veteran boxing writers who SAW Dempsey at his best and had him among the very greatest heavyweights of alltime, over the opinions of some critics on ESB ,90 years later...He was some hell of a fighter
coming up from the west who made a hell of an impression that made him the greatest fistic attraction of all-time. Yessir..