Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

"Again, better is subjective. Better at what? I know more about Dempsey, Greb, Wills, Tunney, et al than you or anyone else on this forum so in that sense yes Im better. You nor McVey or nor Perry have not taught me anything that I didnt know the first time I picked up a boxing magazine with an article about Jack Dempsey.

What you might know about boxing that I dont is not worth knowing nor is it something I care to research. If it was an area that I was interested in I would know more about it than you. THIS area that we are discussing you absolutely do not. Period.

I think as it pertains to this subject Ive seen and read more than you. There is no question in my mind about that.

You are the one who keeps trumpeting IBRO. I dont care about IBRO. IBRO is club that anyone can belong to by paying a minimal annual fee. Its meaningless.

I never denied it. Some of them are some of my best friends and even they would admit that their membership in IBRO is not what makes them good historians.

Have I ever given you the impression that I give two ****s about "those in the know" whoever they are? I dont. Ill stack my knowledge of this era against Callis, Hasson, and Davis any day of the week and twice on sunday. Do I think any of them know more about Dempsey-Wills or Greb or Tunney or the 10s through 20s? **** no I dont and if you got that impression then you were mistaken.

The NRA has a lot of great actors in it. That doesnt make it the Actors Studio. As I said before: I dont give two ****s about IBRO. Its become vogue for people who dont have the first clue about how to conduct historical research (something I actually went to college for) and how to interpret it to try to pin the badge of IBRO on their chest and pretend they belong to an exclusive club. They dont. As I said, anyone can get in. Hence your supposed membership. I hold the individual in esteem, not the club he belongs to merely because he belongs to it.

Actually it did have to do with censorship. Ive only been kicked from two forums. Cyberboxingzone, which kicked anyone who didnt agree with Gordoom and his little half a dozen membership cadre. Essentially Gordoom took his ball and went home when the vast majority of posters saw how pathetic he and his buddies were. That went from being one of the most active forums on boxing to a ghost town in a very short time because he didnt just kick me he kicked 90% of the people on there and another 5% left because they got tired watching Gordoom and his boyfriends stroke themselves. I consider myself in good company with the numerous people who were kicked from that forum and consider myself vindicated in that I long ago predicted he would run that forum into the ground, which he did, now hes hiding in the jungles of Costa Rica because nobody will play with him. Its awfully telling that by the end he had so few posters that he was trying to generate hits and traffic by having Scripps post monotonous link after link after link that had nothing do with any of the posters on that site and then when his little boys club collapsed he blamed everyone else saying it was a thankless job. The only other time Ive been kicked was from here and that was the result of the spillover from CBZ when our friend "Alan Sugar" followed me here from there to continue his ridiculous trolling. He got himself banned in that process as well and banned from Boxrec at the same time. If you go back and look you will see I had plenty of support here when that happened and was doing nothing but defending myself. That instance also resulted in the ban of several other members which dominoed and damn near torpedoed this forum as well and ended up resulting in the founding of another nice forum that catered to the people who got tired of how this was run. So again, I take it as a badge of honor that I got banned here for such an event and I wouldnt change my behavior one bit. Im not going to let some self promoting brain dead moron who wants to pretend he had any impact on boxing at all talk **** about me and not call him on his bull****.

What am I wrong about? That I speak my mind? That I argue passionately and support those arguments with actual facts? Sorry, some people like yourself find facts inconvenient and dont like to be wrong or on the losing end of a debate. Thats a big difference from me losing my temper. Irregardless, whether I lose my temper or not does not change the content of my argument. You can criticize my approach but thats all youve got.

Like I said, its not a competition. If it were then I would just say in 20 years Ill know more about the subject than I do now which is already more than them and theyll all be dead. I win.

Find me an actual film of Greb, not some counterfit VHS tape provided by a proven con man and we will see. Until then Im not interested in conjecture.

Based on your extensive knowledge of Greb...

Better at some things, for sure. If I have a low tolerance for fools then I concede thats a fault. I should be more patient with you. You cant help it.

Probably. I dont care. Fitzsimmons is not someone Ive tried to study in depth. We arent debating Fitzsimmons here.

Incorrect.

The sport as it stands today is an absolute joke. For anyone who grew up when I did and who has seen the fights I have its almost not worth watching outside of a handful of fights here and there. Its every sad. The sport has suffered and it will take a lot to make it better again.

Incorrect. In fact I just mailed out a package of very rare DVDs to a friend of mine (an IBRO member no less) and asked nothing in return. He asked for them and I gave them to him without question. Like I said. You dont know me. Dont pretend you do.

Im not obligated to give anything to anyone. I stand by that. Ive worked long and hard to have what I have. Just because some nameless, faceless guy on the internet thinks he should have access to the fruits of my labor free of charge does not make it so. I live in the real world, not fantasy land.

Thats my perogitive, nobody elses. Its pretty weak to criticize me for that. Im sure you could give your car to some stranger on the street for a week but you dont.

I was referring to Perry pretending that because I have a job in addition to my work in boxing that its somehow a knock on me.

There hasnt been an instance where I have debated with Perry that I was wrong and he was right. I dont debate points that Im familiar enough with to know Im right.

 

I throw myself into my work. There is nothing unhealthy about that. I havent done that since I finished my book but I devote a healthy amount of time to my research.

My research will be shared. Its being worked on right now. Not by me but by the person who purchased my collection and intends to publish it online in his archive. I am helping him do that.

Its a public forum. You arent the OP, you are attacking this thread as much as I am and in fact Im arguing on the side of the OP so I would suggest if anyone is attacking the thread its the people in the wrong: You, Perry, and McVey. Why not take your own advice start your own loveletter thread to Dempsey.

Uhh, no. Im not seeing the ****ogy.

 

No, only the fools who argue despite not knowing what the hell they are talking about.

Oh boo hoo. Somebody Ive never met and likely never will doesnt like me...

Your drunken pub pals would get the **** kicked out of them physically just like you do verbally. Theyd be collecting their last two teeth off the floor. If you think I argue my point any less passionately in person than I do on here you are mistaken and if you think Im afraid to voice my opinion face to face you are wrong.

Like I said, Im not an 8 year old who cares what a couple of ****s on the internet think about me.

So no more bleating on about how Jack Dempsey was the son of god, walked on water, and would save us all? Darn, that broken record never gets old. :hi:

 

During the first two years of his world heavyweight championship reign, Jack Dempsey made three title defenses, which is quite good for a world heavyweight champion at the time. But after fighting Georges Carpentier in his third title defense during 1921, Dempsey made only two title defenses during a period of five years before finally losing the title to Gene Tunney in 1926, a pathetic level of activity for a world heavyweight champion.

- Chuck Johnston

 

This post emphatically confirms the one it is replying to.

 

Successful? From what I see you have not done very well for yourself at all over your 35 years or so. Diffinitely can't have much of a salary living where you do. That book of yours must have failed miserably in terms of sales. I would think this is where all that anger of yours comes from.

What occurred during that time period and why Wills did not get his title shot is all well known and Dempsey was exonerated from blame 90 years go. It is very easy to look through newspapers and then develop outlandish claims by picking and choosing articles in an effort to find a new angle on an old story. This is exactly what you are doing.

You have never written a single positive comment concerning Dempsey a man who was universally considered the greatest hwt in boxing history for many decades. Not just by fans but by the experts. There is a reason for this and it has very little to do with hero worship. Men with credibility far exceeding yours felt he was the best of the best .....Ray Arcel....pretty much universally considered the greatest trainer in boxing history and Sam Langford...pretty much universally thought of as one of boxings ATG fighters are just two. Their are dozens more. Why is it that someone who should be an objective historian never mentions the praise those who watched Dempsey thought of him as a fighter? You ignoring first hand opinions reveals your bias. A biased historian is a worthless historian.

Why is it you never mention that Wills layed no blame on Dempsey? Instead he stated what is known and has been known for 90 years. That is it was the promoters and commissioners who blocked the fight from happening and that Dempsey did all he could to make the fight occur. Again you ignore those first hand opinions that reveal the truth and instead only speak of the snippets from newspapers that present a biased and untrue picture of this history.

In the end you are very biased. Not being interested in the historical truth equates to a completely worthless opinion.

I hope your next book sells better so you can improve your life a bit.

 

He does in this article:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=SAMGAAAAIBAJ&pg=4172,4607422&hl=en

Maybe years later he said something different. In the same way that Dempsey was gracious about his losses to Tunney decades later when he wasn't at the time, blaming it on everything from the referee to being poisoned.

 

And why is it, we never hear quotes from oldtimers, who didn't think he was all that? Oldtimers whose involvement with boxing didn't start during Dempsey's time, but went all the way back to Sullivan and Corbett. What did they think about Dempsey? Would they also pick him as the greatest ever? Or did they think he would be no match for the champs who fought "back in the day"... you know, back when times were tougher and there were real fighters!

No, instead we're asked to take seriously a 1950 poll - even though we know, that those polled must have been young men during Dempsey's reign, and therefore heavily influenced by him.

Ray Arcel - the #1 Dempsey fanboy? C'mon... how can anyone think he's an unbiased expert?

 

I cant see in that link where Wills says Dempsey ducked him.:huh The headline in the Afro- American paper says that but Wills does not. I see Wills had no comment on the two managers arguing for hours over a prospective referee,which kind of shoots a hole in it imo.

I've never read a comment by Dempsey that says the referee or being poisoned was to blame for his defeats to Tunney ,can you provide us with them? For one of their fights Dempsey had skin problems and was taking olive oil, prior to the fight he vomited and was quite unwell ,he blamed one of his entourage ,Mike Trent I believe ,] for deliberately sabotaging him but never attributed that to his defeat.

 

Does Jack Sharkey's opinion carry any weight with you?
Tommy Gibbons?

 

As far as I can see, the people who didn’t think Dempsey was all that, are comparatively few and far between.

At worst you could find a similar number of contemporary naysayers for Joe Louis, or Muhammad Ali.

 

Oh f*ck me, Sanskrit nowatsch

Dodes'ka-den.

 

No... your opinion carries more weight with me! Because you haven't fought Dempsey, you are not related to him (at least I don't think so!), and you are not from that era - so you have no connection to him or that time period.

What you (and the rest of us) do have, is access to the footage of him that exists... which you no doubt have studied carefully, and thereby formed your own personal opinion. An opinion that isn't (I presume!) clouded by personal "hatered" or "fanboyism" - but is simply that of a long-time fan who's into boxing history. So, regardless of what you think of Dempsey, I will value your opinion more than the opinion of those who grew up with him.

 

I would say that this is a somewhat short sighted way of looking at things.