Why is Dempsey vs Firpo highly edited film?

In the New York Times Firpo raised what I would consider the biggest issue. He told the Times after the fight that the referee instructed the fighters to go to a neutral corner after a knockdown but allowed Dempsey to stand over and even behind him.

That does seem a legitimate complaint.

The "aided" getting back in the ring issue is very cloudy for me. The normal thing when someone falls on you is to push them off.

 

When is Tex Rickard supposed to have edited this film and how come an unedited version exists ?
Where did that come from ?

Versions I've seen have pretty much all the action, nothing missing, maybe a few frames here or there. It's difficult to say precisely, because speed is a bit off and mixed (too slow then too fast) but the whole round is pretty much there based on total time estimation and continuity.

 

I don't think so. At the very start of the round seconds are not there that would show Dempsey holding onto Firpo struggling to not go down after that on the button right hand Firpo landed a few seconds after the round begins practically in Firpos own corner.

 

On the other hand the version we see jives closely with the New York Times ringside report of that first knockdown.

 

Rickard admitted having the film edited. He did so in a statement to the press given September 17, 1923 and published the following day. His excuse was that a man stood up and obscured the view of the camera when Dempsey was knocked out of the ring. This wasnt true. Leon D. Britton who had the film made two days later refuted Rickards claim and said that the film was shot using two different lenses and spliced together at the crucial point we see today because the camera could not pan over to the edge of the ring to show Dempsey outside of it and so to get a tighter shot of the action they used the zoom camera footage. This entirely true because the unedited version I have does not show anything beyond the ring ropes due to the way the camera was framed. Nothing nefarious.

There are two versions because one was made for general release for the public and the version I have was not. It was made for a different market and as such uses different footage.

What is suspect about this part (I just noticed this upon viewing it for this post) is that there were three cameras filming the action. The third was a slow motion camera shot using a wide angle lense. In my version parts of the first round are shown in slow motion using footage shot from this high speed camera. You can see that this camera is on a swivel and pans from side to side at times. When Firpo goes to knock Dempsey through the ropes the camera pans over just as Firpo lands his final blow then cuts to an intertitle detailing Dempsey's seconds giving him smelling salts. The one camera that could have captured what happened outside of the ring has its footage edited.

 

Referee Gallagher failed to enforce the rule regarding the neutral corner and Dempsey took full advantage of it.
The rules said the referee may refuse to count until the fighter standing goes to a neutral corner it was pretty vague.

 

Thank Christ!

 

Excuse me but what is so vague about being told to go to a neutral corner when you knock down an opponent?


BTW
The USA ref had absolutely no trouble understanding his responsibility in reference to sending the fighter to a neutral corner when Dempsey tried that same garbage on the American fighter Tunney. Wonder why. Had Dempsey been fighting in Argentina and had the Argentine ref allowed that kind of tripe then USA Dempsey fans would of course have been outraged. Same with Argentine people helping Firpo back into the ring.

 

The use of the word may when applied to the referee's action should the rule be disobeyed.After this fight the wording was changed to must !

 

You don't think so? Why didn't the referee send Tunney to a neutral corner after he put Dempsey down, he didn't and instead began counting the moment Dempsey hit the canvas.

 

He was obviously pro Tunney.

 

Well, about the two versions. It is interesting to me, and heavy evidence, that a NY Times writer had the same 5 second time span for Dempsey getting back into the ring as this film shows today. This was in the Times edition of September 15. Hard to believe this writer could possibly have seen any film that quickly in those days.

 

That is one explanation, but it does show that the referee,contrary to your statement,did have some trouble understanding his responsibilities!

 

That requires the assumption that total lack of understanding was the reason.
Maybe the ref or one of his friends or close relatives had placed bets on Tunney winning.

 

I disagree with this general criticism of the 1927 referee. He had his hand up to start the count immediately on Tunney, but Dempsey was behind Tunney and made no effort to move away. At that point he gestured Dempsey to a neutral corner. Tunney was in front of Dempsey and appears to step back. Dempsey got up immediately. I think the issue is moot about the referee. We don't know if he would have just kept counting if Dempsey stayed down and Tunney stood near him. Without that happening this is just jumping to conclusions w/o evidence.