While I believe Klompton when he says that these tactics were illegal, the question does arise why action was never taken against Dempsey for such blatant fouling. Was there simply more fouling back then so that it was virtually winked at? Was somebody bought off? I can't see somebody standing over an opponent and hitting them as they rise, today, without a bargeload of legal action ensuing.
Im curious about this myself. I know Ollie Pecord was criticized in some circles for the job he did during the Willard fight but even that wasnt really widespread. Against Miske and Gibbons Dempsey had his close friend as referee, Jimmy Dougherty. Daugherty wasnt going to do anything to Dempsey. Harry Ertle who refereed the Carpentier fight was as crooked as they came. Hes the same referee who robbed Stribling of the title against McTigue. If you research that fight youd be disgusted by Ertle, who traveled to and from the fight with McTigue and was totally in his hip pocket for that fight. But again, I dont think Dempsey needed Ertle or dirty tactics to beat Carpentier. The one that really stands out to me is Johnny Gallagher from the Firpo fight. Johnny Haukop's job wasnt that bad considering. Remember, Brennan took a lot of those fouls into his own hands and when a fighter does that a ref tends to be kind of hands off, at least in that era.
It's spinning when you purposefully and knowingly try to pass off rules of the game 90 years ago like they are today. Completely different time, different rules and more than that rules that were interpreted differently. Dempsey went through 75-80 fights before and after he had any potential influence yet he was never DQed. Greb with his constant holding and hitting was never DQed. Zivic perhaps the dirtiest fighter ever was also never DQed. The reason? A far more liberal less structured approach to the rules than today by both the fighters and the officials.
Here is Willards statement after his bout with Dempsey. Note not any mention that Dempsey fought a foul fight: Willard said he did not re- cover from the effects of the left hook that Dempsey landed early in the first round until perhaps an hour after he left the ring. "That was the blow that started me on defeat," Willard said. "I felt physically able to continue but my head wasn't clear and my eye was closed and I realized it would have been useless for me to attempt to box while half blinded. Dempsey is a remarkable hitter. It was the first time that I had ever been knocked off my feet. I have sent many 'birds' home in the same bruised condition that I am in and now I know how they felt. I sincerely wish Dempsey all of the luck possible and hope that he garners all of the riches that go with the championship. I have had my fling at the title. I was champion for four years. And I want to assure you that they'll never have to give a benefit for me. I have invested the money I have made."
Apparently people forget, the opposing corner can protest but at the end of the day the champ gets his way. Fighters negotiate terms and if they accept the fight under those terms, they cant bit ch later "I wuz robbed". McTigue was the champ, Stribling, accepted the terms, just like Siki, did when he fought an Irishman on St Paddy's day, and in of all places Dublin, Ire. Let me ask where did the Stribling fight take place? So if McTigue got some insurance than where were the negotiators of the fight? Notice I am not considering whether he won or lost, only that in a fight, terms are agreed to before the fighters step into the ring. Now remember this was in the deep south at a time where dislike of northerners, and I know McTigue was Irish, but he lived where? What was interesting was the wt of both fighters, both were under the SMW wt of today of 168, 166 1/2 for McTigue and 165 for Stribling. Is the ref's version, plausible? I would say yes, knowing the Deep south at that time dislike of outsiders. Did Stribling win the fight it would seem so, where Stribling might have lost it was in accepting Ertle, but then the question becomes did Stribling even have a choice in the matter? referee: Harry Ertle World Light Heavyweight Title Stribling was champion for just one hour before Referee Harry Ertle apparently changed his mind, while back in his hotel room. McTigue stated that he was forced to enter the ring at gunpoint, even though his hand was broken prior to the bout. Ertle later issued a signed statement saying he had originally ruled the decision a draw and did not reverse his decision, even in the face of threats that if he did not award the bout to Stribling, he would never leave the arena alive. Ertle went on to say that Maj. John Paul Jones, head of the committee of the American Legion that had staged the fight, was responsible for grabbing both his and Stribling’s arms and raising them in the air amidst the chaos. Ertle said that Jones later came by his hotel room and threatened Ertle that “he was being watched where ever he goes.” Augusta Chronicle Regardless of Ertle's version of events Stribling won the newspaper decision of every newspaper present by a wide margin.
More on McTigue - Stribling: San Bernardino Sun, Volume 44, 13 April 1938 — Page 17 BILL CORUM (By International News Service) NEW YORK, April 12. A friend of his has received from Professor Will McCarney a letter that is in many ways an amazing document. You know the professor, of course. He is the handsome, slightly more than portly, black and gray pompadourcd Irishman from Philadelphia who has been in the fight business hereabouts since the memory of most fans runneth not to the contrary. There aren't many spots, here or abroad, where fights are held, that the professor has missed. He has trouped them all and remembered a funny story from each one. So that today he is undoubtedly king of the resin raconteurs. Or story tellers, in your language and mine. In Dudas Camp There isn't a man along the cauliflower concourse who can carry the professor's sponge and water bucket as a spinner of yarns. Some of them, I have no doubt, true. Right now the professor is in the training camp of Steve Dudas near Hamburg, Germany, where on next Saturday the bold Steve will tackle Herr Max Schmeling. I might add in passing that Dudas will have about as much chance as Cohen would have had running for president on that Austrian plebiscite ticket. The professor begins his letter with an almost unbelievably flowery boost for Adolf Hitler. He says that everybody in Germany, high and low, looks on Hitler as the saviour of the country and supports him with an enthusiasm that borders on frenzy. Done as Precaution Indeed, the eulogy is so flattering that you are forced to the suspicion that it may have been done in order to get the letter out of the country. Or possibly even the herr professor out of the country, in case Dudas should behave in untoward fashion in the Schmeling match. It hasn't been so many years ago right here in our own land, that the bold Michael McTigue, his manager, seconds, and referee, had to run for it to escape the noose of an aroused citizenry after a battle with Young Stribling in Columbus, Ga. Only the other day that a survivor of that famous battle took a look at the pictures of the war maneuvers being enacted at Columbus and remarked: "That ain't nothing to what we went through in that town." The referee was his name Ertle rendered one decision in the ring that evening, a verdict predicted on his obvious determination to preserve life and limb at any cost. That "Duke" favored Stribling. Referee Rallies On the train he rallied sufficiently to call the bout a draw while moving at high speed through Virginia. And at the information desk in the Pennsylvania station, he took a firm stand, wiggled his fingers in the direction from which he had some, and announced in a resounding bass that McTigue had won from there to Washington, D. C. which was exactly the distance by which Mike had won in the final accounting, at that. All of which has carried us on a wide detour from Hamburg, Germany and the professor. His views on the political situation in Germany didn't particularly interest us. They wouldn't belong in a sports column, anyhow. So you can write your own ticket on whether the professor was on the level.
No, I don't. As per usual, you start with a point that I haven't made and then attack it. If rabbit punches or kidney punches were agreed upon or legal in ANY of the fights where you've highlighted them as exhibits in your video, you should remove those clips. Since you're building a case against Dempsey for using illegal tactics you should be 100% clear on what the rules and agreements were. I agree. Dempsey was a very dirty fighter. I haven't once pretended otherwise. Yes, part of your video was possibly factually inaccurate, I believe. I believe the rabbit and kidney punches were agreed upon as fair game in the fight in Shelby, Montana at least. Or maybe they weren't. That was the question. It seems you're not sure either. You made the video, no one else. You should be clear on facts and do your research. Then you'd have all the answers. But it's an easy mistake to make.
You said: If you want to pretend Dempsey wasnt fighting dirty in those fights then I would suggest you submit yourself to the same low blows Sharkey was getting. Dempsey was a rough guy and fought that way you know it and so does everybody. Was he fighting saint Sharkey? There’s an old saying for situations like this, “He’s hitting you low, you hit him low.” In other words stop whining, and do something about it. Here is saint Sharkey cracking Dempsey after the bell. Did you see Dempsey whine to the ref, nope it was part of the game, shows he wasnt a cry baby. https://youtu.be/W0RLqeVfxo8 You said: LOL. Yeah, I kinda didnt think so. You chose one fight, the Dempsey Gibbons fight, where I think I used three clips of, maybe four, totally probably less than 30 seconds of a 10 minute video, as somehow proof my video is factually inaccurate based on a comment that Eddie Kane made. Which is fine, throw out the kidney punches and rabbit punches I showed for the Gibbons fight. You still have him spinning Gibbons into the ropes, pushing him through, hitting him while hes defenseless in them and continuing well after the referee is trying to break them. You also have a lot of articles talking about the low blows he threw in that fight as well which given the film wasnt feasible to include You still have him rabbit punching Brennan to the canvas and standing over him (both illegal in NY at the time). You still have him standing over Willard (illegal at the time), hitting while hes rising and supported by the ropes ( both illegal at the time). You still have him standing over Firpo and hitting him as he rises (both illegal at the time). You still have him attempting to stand over Tunney (illegal at the time). You still have all of the low blows and head butts against Sharkey (illegal at the time). Like I said, maybe you can find me some addendums to the rules of the Walker Law, the Illinois Boxing Commission, and the Toledo Boxing Commission where all of that was legal. I'll be waiting here. Throw out rabbit punches and kidney blows anywhere you want and he was still dirty as **** Yes, all this nitpicking is true, when the same can be said of numerous fighters in every division and in every era, so your agenda is.......? Despite all that, Dempsey was and is still THE most popular fighter of his time. When they talked about Dempsey then and now, you didn’t and dont hear a litany of his foul tactics, but hear people speaking in awe and admiration. People 90+yrs later can **** and moan all they want, Dempsey did what he did, and fought who he fought, no matter how you try you cant change the fact that Dempsey is still looked at in awe and admiration, even now MMA and boxing coaches study and try to teach his techniques. Why do you have this obsessive need to disparage an icon that has done so much for boxing.
Well I absolutely was nitpicking when I asked if the rabbit and kidney punches were foul or not. But the video itself is an exercise in nitpicking. The footage itself is telling us nothing we don't already know. Dempsey was a dirty fighter, among other things. As were most of the other heavyweight greats. If someone wants to dress the video up as some sort of educational piece we should get the facts straight. The question posed : "was Jack Dempsey the dirtiest ?" requires putting all the others under equal scrutiny and being 100% sure of what rules and agreements were in place for all the fights.
Well noted. Very interesting. See how his left leg goes back as his body leans forward. Maybe (or probably) an effect of Dempsey's low blows .... His face is contorted with pain.....
And this is the problem with being a boxrec warrior. This account is absolutely ridiculous. McTigue signed a contract to fight to a decision and at the last minute he tried to change that to a no decision. Regardless of whether or not you think champions have godlike power to dictate everything McTigue didnt have any right to break his contract. He then tried to back out of the fight by saying he had a broken thumb. Doctors were called to examine him and found he had no such injury and the fight was ordered on. Ive researched the Stribling-McTigue fight thoroughly and Ive never found an independant first hand source that felt McTigue was even competitive much less won. McTigue is one of the weakest, most worthless champions in history. For you to essentially say thats its Striblings fault that he was robbed because he agreed to a crooked referee is absolutely ridiculous. What a ****ing clown you consistently prove yourself to be.
Then by all means, make your own video. I wonder if you would protest so much if I were to make a video showing Dempsey bobbing and weaving and talking about his awsome defense? Are you bothered that I made a video highlighting Dempsey's dirty tactics? Why? Are you really going to argue Dempsey wasnt dirty? The video, whether you think its nitpicking or not, illustrates that beyond question. So it seems you just have a problem with the fact that theyve been highlighted and nothing else. Dont shoot the messenger, Im not the one committing all of those fouls. The question posed doesnt require me to do anything. If you feel the video was lacking or that you dont know enough about other HW champs from other eras to be able to make a sound judgement then you should solicite someone to you make you videos on them. I merely asked a question and illustrated why that question begged to be asked.
If MMA coaches study and try to teach Dempsey's techniques it would explain why MMA fighters are such shitty boxers.
Kr apper, first off I did mention in my post that I wasnt going into who won or lost. You must've missed that part, also in both fights Mctigue lost. Again since you seem to being arguing a moot point, the officials are a negotiating point, a point you seem not to know. Seems again like you are drowning and reaching for straws that are not there. I never said it was Stribling's fault, but he and his manager had to sign off on the contract. Here is more nitpicking, spinning by a well known spinner of facts to fit his agenda, yessir. The clown you see is your refection in the mirror lol
When I think of all the dumb statements you've made this is a top ten dumb statement. MMA guys fyi, are not trying to be boxers they are looking to get more power into their punches and inside fighting techniques duh!
