What Happened to Dempsey in Flynn 1 ?

Well whatever that object is it seems longer than 3 or 4 inches.
Surely if a large metal object was put inside a glove lt would hurt or damage the fighters hands when punching especially with the power Dempsey threw them?
Also how could it fall out of a tightly secure glove? Would it not be seen?
I think this theory is a bit far fetched.

 

1.I'm saying categorically that Kearns was lying .When he made that allegation he was on the outs with Dempsey and had 3 lawsuits still pending against him.
2. Jimmy DeForest wrapped Dempsey's hands and he did it in the presence of Willard's manager,and Nat Fleischer.
3. Fleischer said ,in print Kearns had nothing to do with the wrapping of Jess's hands,and I produced the quote he made saying just that!
4. The object on the canvas is at least 4 inches long it is a cigar butt!
5. Five ounce gloves are pretty small, have you ever worn them? If Dempsey was going to conceal something in his glove to harden his fist ,why would he not just use a metal slug which is smaller and easier to hide?
If you don't know what they are, you can see a pair of them offered to the guy who fights Charles Bronson in the film The Street Fighter , no more than 2 inches long they are easy to hide ,a man with big hands could do so without gloves on.
6. This "historian? I've never heard of him. Joe Stone?
Where can I find examples of his work?What are the titles of the books/articles he as written and had published?
7.The bolt could have fallen out? Do you mean Dempsey may have inadvertedly let it drop?Or was it hidden in a slit in the glove?
8. A prime fit Willard could take a punch ,a fat complacent version of Jess who hadn't fought for 3 years is another story,Johnson proved that when he dropped Jeffries several times!
9. I don't need to look up the weather in April in Havana.I was there last April on the anniversary of thr very day that Johnson fought Willard! I was changing my clothes 3 times a day and having the same amount of showers and I was only walking around Calle Obispo drinking Crystal beer!
10.I'm saying Willard's injuries were exaggerated by the press.
You have made yourself into yet another laughing stock with your absurd,and unsubstantiated allegations and I'm pleased to tell you I find that extremely gratifying!lol
Please, please continue!

 

Did boxer Jack Dempsey use loaded gloves when he won his first heavyweight title?
August 31, 2011 | 11:19 am

When Dempsey's then-manager Jack "Doc" Kearns confessed that the gloves were loaded in a Sports Illustrated excerpt of Kearns' biography in 1964 (it was published posthumously, as Kearns died in 1963), the suspicions from 1919 became a hot topic and have remained a contested subject ever since. So, did Dempsey use loaded gloves to win the title?

Read on to find out!
It is important to note that this is a special case in that, unlike many other similar controversies, it did not solely arise after the fact. In fact, Willard was concerned about the possibility of Dempsey tampering with his gloves before the bout. So much so that part of the stipulations of the match was that a member of Willard's camp observe the taping of Dempsey's hands. And here is where Kearns' confession enters into things. He claims that right under the nose of the opposing side's observer (and unbeknown to Dempsey himself!) that Kearns had doctored Dempsey's taped hands. Kearns claims that he sneaked a container of Plaster of Paris in place of talcum powder, and when Dempsey wetted his taped hands (which he did do), Kearns put the "talcum powder" on Dempsey's gloves and the end result was Dempsey having his hands essentially covered in cement. Kearns noted that he did this because he bet a good sum of money that Dempsey would knock Willard out in the first round. The amount of money he would win if Dempsey did so was more than Willard was guaranteed for the entire fight! There are a few notable problems with Kearns' story. One, he is a terribly unreliable narrator, as Dempsey had fired Kearns in 1923 because he felt that Kearns was skimming money from Dempsey. Kearns unsuccessfully tried to sue Dempsey a number of times. So Kearns clearly was not someone that you would just take at his word when it came to Dempsey, especially an 81 year old Kearns reflecting back on a match from forty years earlier. Beyond the credibility issues regarding Kearns, though, his story just made no sense. Every other person in the room denied that Dempsey's hands were covers in Plaster of Paris and more importantly, Boxing Illustrated tested the idea out and saw that the plaster would crack the first time that you hit someone, leaving you with cracked plaster within your glove. At best, this would make punching your opponent extremely painful and as worst, it would break you hands. Dempsey's hands were not broken and he punched Willard with ease during the match. The manufacturers of Plaster of Paris even stated that their product could not be used in the manner.

Kearns described. Perhaps most importantly, there is film of the fight and it shows Willard looking at Dempsey's taped hands before the bout! Clearly, he would notice if Dempsey's hands were covered in Plaster of Paris. Even Sports Illustrated issues a statement in 1965 noting that they felt that Kearns' statements were not true (granted, after Dempsey first filed suit against them for libel).

The second argument for Dempsey having a loaded glove is that he hid an iron spike in his glove during the first round and then discarded it. Again, the theory would be that Dempsey was involved in a bet that stated that he had to knock Willard out in the first round. Dempsey nearly did knock Willard out at the end of the first period, but a timekeeping snafu kept Willard in the match. The theory behind Dempsey using a spike is that a tiny thin dark object is seen on the ring apron while Willard is being counted out. This would be the supposed iron spike that Dempsey used to knock Willard down and cause so much damage to Willard.

However, it is worth noting that the injuries to Willard's face were greatly exaggerated. For instance, his jaw was not broken (he gave a statement to reporters after the match, for crying out loud!). So the shocking amount of injuries suffered by Willard that caused many to think that Dempsey would have HAD to have used a loaded glove if he did so much damage were not so shocking. As to the iron spike story, it is not supported by the facts of the fight. In the film of the bout, Dempsey pushed and held Willard with an open hand with the glove that supposedly had an iron spike in it. That does not make sense. Nor does it make sense that Dempsey would be able to drop an iron spike in front of everyone without anyone noticing it. Finally, if Dempsey was using an iron spike, why the heck would Kearns not just say that if he wanted to argue that Dempsey was using a loaded glove?

In the end, there just isn't any substantial evidence showing that Dempsey used a loaded glove in the Willard match. ...

 

If Jack Dempsey had a loaded glove or gloves, Jess Willard would have been fortunate to be alive while leaving Toledo after the bout. In regards to the alleged damage that Willard sustained during the bout, it should be pointed out that he later had two more bouts.

- Chuck Johnston