Not a Bad Argument Pro-Dempsey ..

klompton's writing a book about Wills and Dempsey.
Y'know, the definitive objective account.

 

It's **** they never met each other but I reckon at no point would wills have been favourite and in fact at any point it would have been a huge upset.

Had Dempsey beaten wills we would now be talking about why he never fought Langford or mcvey.

Not that wills wasn't amazingly worthy but the nature of fans is we always find something to complain about.

 

I think it's obvious enough that Dempsey's manager Kearns wanted easier challengers. For the money they could get for them, it made sense.
I suspect in later years the same thing was true from the perspective of Wills' manager.

 

Yeah, I think James Dean was a f**king good actor. He only did 3 films, and one of them (Rebel Without A Cause) is a bit sh!t if I remember rightly.

 

Excellent article, always nice for non historian's like myself to get gleams of history in what appears to be in a balanced and objective context.

 

Regardless of what we think of modern boxing, or boxing in the past, one can never forget that it's a business first, and if it's a fan friendly sceptical, well that's merely a bonus.

 

:hi::happyparty

 

I have always felt that those who make the more damning assessments of Dempsey's role in this, are looking for a simple answer to a complex question.

 

Pretty much my position to a T. Hugely talented guy that was milked by his handlers loke no fighter before... and perhaps since.

 

He had a highly contrived championship run. When I damn Dempsey for this, I really am pointing the finger at Dempsey & Co.

 

You might want to wave the finger a bit wider.

The New York State Athletic Commission should definitely have a finger thrust in its direction!