Was Dempsey the only boxer to stand over opponents after knocking them down?

By the time Dempsey was champion state and local athletic/boxing commissions governed the sport and its rules. For instance when Dempsey fought Willard in Toledo the city had an athletic commission that set the rules of the bout as outlined in my post above in relation to the knockdown rule. When Dempsey fought Firpo and Brennan the Walker law was in effect and governed the rules of the sport. When Dempsey fought Carpentier the New Jersey State Athletic Commission rules were in effect. When Dempsey fought Tunney in Philadelphia the Pennsylvannia State Athletic Commission rules were in effect and when he fought Tunney in Chicago the Illinois Boxing Commission rules were in effect. I dont recall the rules in effect for Miske (Michigan) or Gibbons (Montana) although I do know the rules in effect for Montana were more loose and the fighters were able to make changes to them in negotiating the contract.

 

When Dempsey fought Willard in Toledo the Toledo Boxing Commission rules were in effect which deferred to the MoQ on the subject of knockdowns: "If either man falls through weakness or otherwise, he must get up unassisted, 10 seconds to be allowed him to do so, the other man meanwhile to return to his corner, and when the fallen man is on his legs the round is to be resumed and continued until the three minutes have expired. If one man fails to come to the scratch in the 10 seconds allowed, it shall be in the power of the referee to give his award in favour of the other man." These rules had been in effect since January of 1918.

When Dempsey fought Carpentier in New Jersey the New Jersey rules deferred to the MoQ on the subject of knockdowns: "If either man falls through weakness or otherwise, he must get up unassisted, 10 seconds to be allowed him to do so, the other man meanwhile to return to his corner, and when the fallen man is on his legs the round is to be resumed and continued until the three minutes have expired. If one man fails to come to the scratch in the 10 seconds allowed, it shall be in the power of the referee to give his award in favour of the other man." The New Jersey rules had been in effect since April of 1918.

When Dempsey fought Firpo and Brennan the rules in effect in New York under the Walker Law state: "If a contestant is down, his opponent shall retire to the farthest corner of the ring and remain there until the count is completed. Should he fail to do so the referee may cease counting until he has so retired." These rules had been in effect since September 1920 and were heavily publicized.

Now, please show me where it was codified that a champion could stand over a fallen fighter and strike him upon rising and please give me a specific date for every single one of these venues when that rule was changed. You cant because it never happened. Attempts to spin all of these scenarios fly in the face of the facts. For instance, your insistence that Barry didnt begin the count over Tunney immediately despite the fact that he very clearly did. Period, its there on film all day long and as stated the only difference in his behavior was due to the fact that when Tunney was down Dempsey interrupted the count as Barry was implementing it and continued to do so prompting Barry to halt the count and usher Dempsey away which was exactly what the rules required. When Dempsey was down Barry counted “one” as he rushed BETWEEN Dempsey and Tunney but Dempsey rose immediately so we never got to see whether Barry would have been forced to halt the count. Pretending that he did something different or would have takes quite a lot of imagination. What is being missed here by looking at a silent film is that in both instances when the fighters were down the TIMEKEEPER began the count. Barrys job in both instances is to pick up the count which he did. However, the referee was given the power to halt and/or resume the count if the standing fighter did not return to a corner which Barry did in Dempsey's case, and rightly so, because Dempsey hovered over Tunney in violation of the rule. Somehow Barry has been crucified for following the rules while guys like Ollie Pecord, Johnny Haukop, and Johnny Gallagher get a pass for not enforcing the rules.

And as stated before it wasnt merely a situation of Dempsey being unfamiliar with the rules (which is a ludicrous assertion) but he was trying to gain an unfair advantage. Period. In every one of these instances Dempsey is seen jockeying for a position BEHIND his fallen opponent so he catch them unawares when they rise.

https://flic.kr/p/2jJNTJx
https://flic.kr/p/2jJStMj
https://flic.kr/p/2jJTi1y
https://flic.kr/p/2jJNTMZ
https://flic.kr/p/2jJThZr
https://flic.kr/p/2jJNTM8[/QUOTE]
You seem to be under the illusion I am making excuses for Dempsey, as I stated, what happened was entirely his own fault.The rule was clarified just prior to the 1927 fight between Dempsey and Tunney,that is a fact .
Because Dempsey intially did not go to a neutral corner TUNNEY got an extra valuable, but entirely legitimate 5 seconds Barry did NOT pick up the count whenTunney hit the deck,he began his count AFTER Dempsey had stopped standing over GENE and he did NOT pick it up off the timekeeper he began an entirely separate count starting at ONE in doing so he was perfectly correct.Barry was crucified for his completely legimate actions in this instant and for picking up the count immediately Dempsey went down with Tunney standing next to him Barry got to one and Dempsey was up,but he should not have begun counting until Tunney, like Dempsey had retired to the furthest neutral corner.Barry's reputation was impeccable before the fights and he was unjustly maligned after it.
Dempsey brought the problem upon himself.
I never suggested or implied it was legal for a fighter to stand over a fallen opponent, so why you think I should I provide you with some fictitious piece of paper is beyond me!
Neither have I anywhere said Dempsey was unfamiliar with the rules. This is a familar tactic of yours,putting words in others mouths then shooting them down.

I didnt make a statement I posted a link.I thought that was apparent?
What the rules were in New Jersey or New York is irrelevant they were not fighting in either place! They were fighting in Chicago Illlinois,

https://www.proboxing-fans.com/boxing-101/history/1920s-boxing
Illinois had recently passed a new rule that mandated that fighters who scored a knockdown would be sent to a neutral corner. In the 7th, Dempsey scored a series of blows, dropping Tunney. Rather than go to a neutral corner, Dempsey was confused, costing himself valuable seconds as Tunney tried to …"
Dempsey was fully aware of this but ignored it,he said himself," I saw him down and lost my head ,his fault!He had gotten away withstanding over fallen fighters but this time he didnt and it MAY have cost him the title, note I say may,but he wasnt robbed of it and I've never suggested he was ,or that he was entitled to stand over fighters and hit them when they got up.So drop the indignant rage and the sarcastic asides you're not the only poster here who was read boxing history,, though you often behave as though you are , and that you are bestowing a favour on us by entering debates with us common folk. You have a lot of knowledge, but you don't know everything and in this case you are wrong in stating the rule wasn't changed in ILLINOIS just prior to the fight ,it was.
The clue is in your own words.

The rule or some variation of it, was in effect for Willard, Brennan, Firpo etc.

FYFI The neutral corner rule came in in1916 It was amended after the Firpo fight to include the word FURTHEST Fleischer wrote an article in the Ring about it and ,as usual claimed credit for its introduction.
Dempsey is my favourite fighter but I have nor problem in stating his difficulties in the Chicago fight were entirely of his own making.
That's called objectivity, something that on the subject of Jack Dempsey you have shown yourself time and again to be singularly lacking.
You mention Dempsey being in your words a dirty fighter yet idolise Harry Greb?Was he Mr Clean?

 

No, you stated:

Ive asked you to quote me these “accepted championship rules” and Im still waiting. Im also waiting for you to show me where and when the rule changed leaving Dempsey ignorant. Im still waiting for that as well. Ive quoted verbatim rules dating back to the MoQ, all under which Dempsey fought championships, which stipulated the exact opposite of what you are saying. Dempsey was breaking the rules when he stood over opponents. He was allowed to often times and this was noted by contemporary sources. So its not like this was some novel, newfangled invention that Dempsey wasnt familiar with as many, yourself included, have tried to allege in order to keep from drawing the obvious conclusion that he was a dirty fighter who took unfair advantage.

 

I've already stated I posted a link it is NOT MY STATEMENT .Now the rule was amended in Illinois just prior to the Chicago fight if you don't want to accept that that's your problem.I've never stated Dempsey was, or was not a dirty fighter,there you go again putting words in my mouth, I never said.
You're not rational on the subject of Dempsey Klompy, and if you live to be hundred you still never will be. No point in taking this further. enjoy your evening.

 

You posted a link to a website making that statement. You might as well post a facebook link or a blog link. Ive posted you the actual rule and still you persist. You tell me which is rational. If you cant post this rule that you say was accepted that a champion could stand over an opponent and hit them upon rising or the rules in Illinois prior to this supposed change, showing that a fighter could stand over someone and hit them while rising then I can assume that if your best source backing up your claim is an uncited website then youre just talking out of your ass, which of course we both know but you cant admit it. There was no rule allowing fighters to stand over a fallen victim and indeed Dempsey had always been fighting under rules that dictated that a fighter had to return to a corner, or his corner, or a neutral corner after he had downed a fighter and as such the only confusion on Dempsey's part was running into a referee who actually applied the rules to him. Given his long history of fouling I can see how this might confuse him.

 

All this remember from the man writing an "objective" bio of Dempsey-Wills!! Dempsey might as well as raped Klompy for the sheer wrath Klompy has for Jack. That will be one hell of a yellow historical fiction book. Oh well, Seamus will buy 100 copies.

 

You refuse to admit the Illinois commission amended their rule just prior to the Tunney Dempsey fight.
You refuse to admit that Barry did not start a count over Tunney until he had made Dempsey move away and that he began his count at 1 not 5 which the time keeper had tolled off.Youre the one talking out of his arse but as usual you're too damned arrogant to concede you're wrong!Or the possiblity that such a thing could ever be!
You refuse to admit Barry started a count over Dempsey as soon as Jack went down with Tunney still standing over him. In his autobiography Dempsey says,"Dave Barry called us to the centre of the ringand said","both you boys have received a copy of the rules of this boxing commission .They are the rules under which you are going to fight.They have been discussed by your representatives for several days at the commission.Now I want to make one point clear.In the event of a knockdown the man scoring the knockdown will go to the furthest neutral corner.Is that Clear?" "We nodded,he continued,In the event of a knockdown unless the boy scoring it goes to the farthest neutral corner,I will not begin the count." Jack Dempsey no excuses from him and none from me.Barry did not begin a count overTunney until Dempsey was in a corner away from Tunney just admit that for once .Barry began his count when he returned for shepherding Dempsey away all perfectly correctand he ddi not pick up the timekeepers count as you stated he began his own count at one.And you ca, find this inthe next days papers and inseveral books on Dempsey including RandyRoberts one. Flash News you are not a boxing Oracle your'e just one poster with a goodly amount of knowledge but youre not infallible and ithi case you're dead wrong!
You're wrong about the rule being amended .
You're wrong about Barry's taking up the count
And you're wrong about me.
Get over yourself Mate!

As Tunney flopped down, timekeeper Paul Beeler bounced up as if they were sharing a see-saw.

Beeler began his count, his eyes on the 29-year-old Tunney and his stopwatch. Barry, however, had turned away from the fallen Tunney. He was half-waving, half-pushing, frantically trying to get Dempsey to a neutral corner.

- - -

Only a year before, in 1926, had boxing even become legal in Illinois. So now, on Sept. 22, 1927, for what was being billed as the ''Battle of the Ages,'' the Marquis of Queensbury rules were still being modified in the state.Chicago Tribune Sep21st 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manassa_Mauler
A new rule instituted at the time of the fight mandated that when a fighter knocked down an opponent, he must immediately go to a neutral corner. Dempsey, however, refused to immediately move to the neutral corner when instructed by the referee. The referee had to escort Dempsey to the neutral corner, which bought Tunney at least an extra five seconds to recover. Even though the official ...

 

Ali stood over both the fallen Liston and Bonavena. Saad Muhammad did that occasionally too. Not too many do it that I know of though.

 

You can repeat bull**** all you want it doesnt make it true because you continue to say it louder and longer. Ive quoted you the actual rules. Period, you are quoting from stories written DECADES after the events by people who werent there. The only person here who is wrong is you and you cant admit it so you are grasping at the flimsiest of sources to back you up. Im not. Im quoting from the actual rules, the officials, the films, everything contemporaneous to the events. You arent. You can insist Barry acted differently but he didnt and anyone withone eye and half a brain cell can see that. In both instances he jumped in with the count immediately the only difference was that Dempsey, when down, was up at the count of “one” so we never got to see if Tunney would refuse to go to a corner or if Barry would halt his and the timekeepers count. Any speculation that he would is just that, pure speculation. Barry picked up the count at one because Barry was the only official granted the power to stop the count in the event that a fighter didnt go to a corner during a knockdown. This is also in the rules which youd know if you had half a clue of what you are talking about. Barrys count was halted at one and resumed at one because of Dempseys action and again his handling if the events was lauded by the commission and found to be in PERFECT ACCORDANCE with the rules. But the fact that the rules were well known, well publicized BEFORE THE FIGHT (as Ive shown), agreed upon in detail by both fighters and their managers BEFORE THE FIGHT as detailed by the commissioners and press, distributed with the fight program, and gone over again just prior to the fight with both fighters pretty much kills any moronic assertion that Dempsey was confused by some last minute rule change, never mind the fact that you completely ignore that the rule had always prevented a fighter from standing over his fallen opponent. As shown previously Dempsey routinely tried to jockey for a position behind a fallen fighter to strike him unawares upon rising, this is no different except he had referee enforcing the rules and that, not the numerous instances of his fouling, is what his his fans decry. That an apologist. Thats you. Again, you stated categorically that it was an accepted rule that a champion could stand over a fallen opponent and strike him upon rising prior to this fight. Thats bull**** as Ive shown. You continue to state that the rule was changed just prior to this fight. Fine, show me the rules prior to this change. In 1926 when boxing was legalized in Illinois the state boxing commission published its rulebook which is still easily found today. It was published more than a year before the Tunney fight. Go ahead and quote that rule word for word for everyone here. No? Didnt think so because its already been quoted here and youd either have to admit you were wrong (the horror) or lie or you could half ass pretend it was just some story youd heard on one of these websites you keep quoting and you really dont have a dog in this fight though anyone here can see that the lady doth protest too much and does indeed have a dog in this fight and purpose is to protect against any stain on Dempsey’s honor.

 

I agreed the rules were shown before the fight and included Dempsey's own quotes confirming it.I've posted quotes stating the rule was changed ,you don't want to accept them fine.You stated Barry picked up the count from Beeler the tiemkeeper whenTunney went down this is completely false he didnt and Roberts and Fleischer in his the Heavyweight Championship both categorically state that Barry correctly did not begin to count until he had ushered Dempsey away, so you're wrong there too.
Barry also began a count as soon as Demspey went down in the 8th rd with Tunney standing over him which was not correct.You wont accept that because your phobic bias will not permit you to do so.

I've been wrong many many times lots of then on here and I dont have a problem being proven so and corrected you did it with me about the Folley vMildenberger fight and brought me up to speed on Marcel Thil and I'm grateful for it, that's how we all add to our knowledge. Not you of course, because you already know everything don't you?
You ascribe motives to me I dont have, I readily admitted Dempsey got away with standing over opponents and hitting them when they arose. Was he the only fighter to do this in this era?
Lets talk turkey here.
You hate Dempsey's guts that's the bottom line,you can admit it ,FFS its hardly a secret!LOL

You might want to attempt to be less sneering and condescending in your responses, it would make your replies a deal more courteous and pleasant.Politeness doesn't cost you anything I can be just as acerbic as you, with a damn sight more extensive a vocabulary, but I reserve it for those who instigate the insults.
You come out firing both barrels everytime ,indignant that anyone would dare to question your Mount Sinai statements,
New Flash, you're just another poster here Mate ,you're not Ernest Hemingway,or Bill Heinz.
Enjoy your day and I look forward to more of your content on other subjects,hopefully with a little less scorn and condescension in them.