How would dempsey do against todays Heavyweights?

[travestyny]

Berto's eyes looked just as bad after his fight with Guerrero. Loaded wraps?

Dude, obviously you've heard that story. Luis Resto admitted to the loaded wraps. Padding was also removed.

[Zaroku]

Berto's eyes looked just as bad after his fight with Guerrero. Loaded wraps?

Vargas' left eye looked even worse from Mosley's right hands. Loaded wraps?

Liston put 39 stitches in Wepners face and broke his cheekbone, no loaded wraps.

The Dempsey loaded/taped wraps myth was debunked. His manager who he fired later came out with that story. Several of his former opponents spoke out in his favor. As did many journalists who helped to debunk those cheating allegations.

Within 3 rounds? That's all I'm saying, but people bruise and swell differently..

[travestyny]

Berto's eyes looked just as bad after his fight with Guerrero. Loaded wraps?

Vargas' left eye looked even worse from Mosley's right hands. Loaded wraps?

Liston put 39 stitches in Wepners face and broke his cheekbone, no loaded wraps.

The Dempsey loaded/taped wraps myth was debunked. His manager who he fired later came out with that story. Several of his former opponents spoke out in his favor. As did many journalists who helped to debunk those cheating allegations.

Dude, how many times are you going to pretend that you can't read?


We are NOT discussing the plaster of paris story. You are blatantly pretending to be unaware of what I've posted to you more than a few times because you can't handle the truth.

We are talking about Dempsey's trainer DeForest admitting that he used a special kind of tape that hardens and causes "unusual damage."

Read that again....then again....then come post with something related instead of talking about the Kearns story that was already debunked.

From DeForest less than a year after the fight and while he was still working with Dempsey. He would go on to continue training him, so no, this was not a jilted ex- employee. It was a current and continuing employee.

“When I handled Kid McCoy I used to bandage his hands with a certain kind of adhesive tape. As soon as McCoy drew on the gloves, the tape hardened and, as a result, he was able to inflict unusual punishment. I wound Dempsey's hands with the same kind of bandages, which Willard inspected. The story that Dempsey wore aluminum pads over his knuckles is a lie. His bandages became hardened, no doubt, and that was why he cut Willard's face to ribbons.”

[Anthony342]

Dude, obviously you've heard that story. Luis Resto admitted to the loaded wraps. Padding was also removed.

Loaded wraps? According to the Assault In The Ring documentary, it was only padding being removed from the gloves, they never mentioned them being loaded with anything.

And if Dempsey could get loaded gloves or wraps, I imagine he would've been able to win at least one of those fights against Tunney.

[travestyny]

Loaded wraps? According to the Assault In The Ring documentary, it was only padding being removed from the gloves, they never mentioned them being loaded with anything.

And if Dempsey could get loaded gloves or wraps, I imagine he would've been able to win at least one of those fights against Tunney.

Resto admit the wraps were loaded in plaster later.

Resto: Wraps were doctored with plaster in fight vs. Collins

http://www.espn.com/sports/boxing/news/story?id=3329115

As for Dempsey vs. Tunney, who knows if he used them? When he fought Carpentier, Carpentier's manager asked him to remove the tape, which he did. We don't need to speculate about the Tunney fight when we have the word of his trainer saying specifically that he wore the tape in the Willard fight. I'm not accusing him of using them for every fight, but he apparently used it against Willard and tried to use it against Carpentier because they asked for only gauze in accordance with the NJ rules.


I wonder if Margarito used his plaster slabs against P. Williams, and Williams won that fight!

[billeau2]

First of all, great conversation and I appreciate it. Just want to ensure that there is no tension here..but I don't intend to let you off the hook. lol




Who are the "lots of people" that didn't buy that. Plenty have already agreed that these were indeed loaded wraps. I posted this already

But besides that, what do you mean that Willard was able to keep fighting? He was knocked down 7 times and on the canvas in the neutral corner at the end of the first round!!!!

He stayed on his feet for the next two rounds but his corner called an end to it. He obviously wasn't going to make it...so I don't see how you can argue that he was able to keep fighting. There is a reason the towel was thrown!




Exactly! I think we agree. Particularly to this being a trick. I've never argued that fighters didn't do this. I've argued that they were loaded gloves, which they clearly were.



Exactly. The bolded part. That's what I'm saying, bro!





Dude. Are you serious? LMAO. The fight went 3 rounds. I don't get your argument here.

And how could he go on if there were bricks? We have an example of that. Billy Collins finished his 10 round fight with Luis Resto. That pretty much proves your point to be moot since we know Resto loaded his gloves. Let me remind you what he looked like at the finish line.



Willard made it to the 3rd round.



I don't know what Willard had on his hands, but I know that he complained about going up against guys that had hardened wraps. I've seen no evidence of Willard using loaded gloves, and even if I had, what's the point that you are trying to make. Then simply put, they both used loaded gloves. I think you're assuming that I'm trying to say Dempsey did something illegal. I'm not. I'm saying the same thing you are saying. Rules were lax and he took advantage of that by using loaded gloves.

In the first source you give the author uses the word "Can be" explained regarding the gloves. That is not a definite conclusion. The fact that this was not a definite conclusion means that it was up in the air and was not accepted as fact.

Willard had he been subject to the extent of injury claimed would not be able to go in for 3 minutes...much less rounds!

Just arguing whether he had material in his glove, or not, unfortunately while it makes things easy, is not really the debate. The debate is whether Dempsey put something in his glove that materially caused Willard to lose, in a cheating way. One day people will have this very debate about steriods, and people will say "its very simple, either the guy had steriods, or not" But won't be that simple... Because if one understands how these things work, there is more to it... My son's Godfather was a friend of victor Comte from way back... the whole notion of what is a food supplement and what is steroidal is actually interesting to say the least.. Comte was famous for matching food supplements to nutritional deficiencies and supplementing this with enhancements... that is why he was so succesful actually.

Regarding Reston...there have been a number of these fights and they all had concrete (pardon the pun) evidence of exactly what was in the gloves. A hard cement like finish will cause one problem, cutting will cause another, Margarito's actions caused a specific reaction based on the material as well. If we want to be consistent then we have to look at exactly what could have been in Dempsey's gloves and we might as well deal with that while we are in the neighborhood.

The initial claim as I remember it was that Dempsey had metal in his glove and that a metal piece was found in the ring while the fighters were leaving. My recollection is that this was disproven and was shown to be a frame job by Dempsey's manager.

Then the claim was that a hard material was used, his glove wrapper apparently later said this was so... The time line itself is sketchy on this, I mean the guy had plenty of time to speak if it was such an abnormal event...yet when he speaks up, years later, he makes it sound par for the course: See where I am going with this?

But I digress, we are talking about forensics here, specifically what Willard should have encountered in the beating he received. It would appear that he was marked up but when we separate the hyperbole... You could not even shatter the cheekbone in 3 places Travesty, it would literally fall off. Willard had the look of a man who was drubbed, not hit with hard objects like cement. Dempsey was a hard hitter and Willard was not punching back, which accounted for a lot of the abuse.

Ironickly what hurt Willard the most in that fight was another peculiar custom/rule that was typical for the time: No neutral corner. Dempsey really took advantage of this policy and never let Willard regain his footing, that caused Willard more problems than anything in Dempsey's wraps.

Finally when you say "loaded wraps" this is a loaded term. We don't know what Dempsey had in those gloves because the forensics, the accounts, all vary considerably. What I will grant anyone is that most fighters at that time did in fact use many things in wraps, on the hands, that would not be allowed today. This is why Carpetier's manager checked, that and rumors from this event. What did he find in those wraps? were they checked before Demsey was made to switch?

Let me pose this question once again: If we are putting on hardening agents and we apply them on the hands of fighter A, and we put them on the wraps for fighter B, his opponent... does one guy have the moral high ground? Think about it because that is part of the problem here.

[travestyny]

In the first source you give the author uses the word "Can be" explained regarding the gloves. That is not a definite conclusion. The fact that this was not a definite conclusion means that it was up in the air and was not accepted as fact.

So you conveniently are accepting of what that author says. But you do not accept what the trainer who was directly involved said. Doesn't that seem a bit biased to you? The trainer said specifically the tape causes unusual damage and that it was the reason Dempsey cut Willards face to ribbons.

Willard had he been subject to the extent of injury claimed would not be able to go in for 3 minutes...much less rounds!

Just arguing whether he had material in his glove, or not, unfortunately while it makes things easy, is not really the debate. The debate is whether Dempsey put something in his glove that materially caused Willard to lose, in a cheating way. One day people will have this very debate about steriods, and people will say "its very simple, either the guy had steriods, or not" But won't be that simple... Because if one understands how these things work, there is more to it... My son's Godfather was a friend of victor Comte from way back... the whole notion of what is a food supplement and what is steroidal is actually interesting to say the least.. Comte was famous for matching food supplements to nutritional deficiencies and supplementing this with enhancements... that is why he was so succesful actually.

If it were considered cheating, DeForest wouldn't have mentioned it. It was considered sneaky and a way to gain an unfair advantage, but not illegal due to rules being lax. Again, I think you are stuck on the legality of this issue, whereas I'm simply providing proof that he went the route of an unfair advantage that was not illegal due to lax rules. I think you've agreed to this already.

Regarding Reston...there have been a number of these fights and they all had concrete (pardon the pun) evidence of exactly what was in the gloves. A hard cement like finish will cause one problem, cutting will cause another, Margarito's actions caused a specific reaction based on the material as well. If we want to be consistent then we have to look at exactly what could have been in Dempsey's gloves and we might as well deal with that while we are in the neighborhood.

The initial claim as I remember it was that Dempsey had metal in his glove and that a metal piece was found in the ring while the fighters were leaving. My recollection is that this was disproven and was shown to be a frame job by Dempsey's manager.

Then the claim was that a hard material was used, his glove wrapper apparently later said this was so... The time line itself is sketchy on this, I mean the guy had plenty of time to speak if it was such an abnormal event...yet when he speaks up, years later, he makes it sound par for the course: See where I am going with this?

No, I don't see where you are going. He spoke up about it less than a year after the fight and shortly before Dempsey was to face Carpentier, who asked him to remove the tape from his wraps. He spoke on it while he was still working with Dempsey, and worked with him for years after that. So no, it wasn't years later. In fact, Arthur Daley mentioned specifically that it was compelling for the fact that it was less than a year after the fight.

But I digress, we are talking about forensics here, specifically what Willard should have encountered in the beating he received. It would appear that he was marked up but when we separate the hyperbole... You could not even shatter the cheekbone in 3 places Travesty, it would literally fall off. Willard had the look of a man who was drubbed, not hit with hard objects like cement. Dempsey was a hard hitter and Willard was not punching back, which accounted for a lot of the abuse.

Ironickly what hurt Willard the most in that fight was another peculiar custom/rule that was typical for the time: No neutral corner. Dempsey really took advantage of this policy and never let Willard regain his footing, that caused Willard more problems than anything in Dempsey's wraps.

Billeau, I don't know what you are basing this on. How can you speak for how much damage the hardened wraps caused Willard? That doesn't seem possible to me. I know there is debate about the degree of his damage, and some argue that he was just fine. Here is what I could find from the two men directly involved:

Dempsey was always very honest and often very self-effacing about his achievements. But even Jack, who gave every credit to the gameness of his opponents, couldn’t put a soft focus lens on the brutality of Toledo. Willard’s pitiful state at the end of it all made Dempsey want to vomit.

“Willard was a sorry sight,” Jack said, when describing the last moments of the horror. “His face was swollen and bruised. His right eye stared at me glassily and he could hardly talk through his cracked lips. I pelted him with more blows, including a hard left to his eye, partially shutting it. He was becoming bloodier and he spat out a tooth.

Sitting on his stool at the end of the third round, Dempsey became mesmerized by the gruesome vision in the opposite corner. “I looked over toward Willard. His face was distorted by a broken cheekbone and he was having trouble holding his head up. I felt sick. I hadn’t realized that my inner fury could do so much damage.

http://www.boxing.com/the_horror_jes..._injuries.html

The part about him spitting out a tooth is interesting since some argued that he didn't lose any teeth at all, but Dempsey is directly refuting that. And it says that Dempsey was not one to toot his own horn, and felt sick at seeing Willard like that.

It was also said that Willards cheekbone was never broken, and Dempsey says it was. Of course, he's no doctor and I won't say he can diagnose that....but what about Willard who tried to provide physical evidence of that to someone?

"First time Dempsey hit me, I knew those gloves were loaded,” said Willard, who pointed to his left cheekbone. "Put your hand here. Feel that bone moving around? That’s what them cement gloves did to me."

Finally when you say "loaded wraps" this is a loaded term. We don't know what Dempsey had in those gloves because the forensics, the accounts, all vary considerably. What I will grant anyone is that most fighters at that time did in fact use many things in wraps, on the hands, that would not be allowed today. This is why Carpetier's manager checked, that and rumors from this event. What did he find in those wraps? were they checked before Demsey was made to switch?

Again, you are ignoring what the trainer said. He told you what they were. There was no reason for him to lie about it. It wasn't strictly speaking illegal, and he was still working with Demp. So I don't get why this is so hard to accept.

Let me pose this question once again: If we are putting on hardening agents and we apply them on the hands of fighter A, and we put them on the wraps for fighter B, his opponent... does one guy have the moral high ground? Think about it because that is part of the problem here.

Why is that part of the problem? I don't see that as a problem at all. There was never any evidence that Willard used loaded gloves. There IS evidence that Dempsey used loaded gloves. If they both used loaded gloves, then they both used loaded gloves. It's not like I'm pulling evidence out of my ass. Once again, the people who reported on this were very well respected:

Artur Dailey, who commented on the exhumed article:

His writing earned him a Pulitzer Prize in 1956 for "outstanding coverage and commentary on the world of sports" in the category of "Local Reporting, No Edition Time". The National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association named him "Sportswriter of the Year" in 1963, and added him to its Hall of Fame in 1976

And the original piece was written by Joe Vila, who was the first sportswriter to use a typewriter at ringside doing round by round coverage and also went into the baseball Hall of Fame. He was the one who conducted the interview and wrote it up in the newspaper.

Vila has been regarded as one of the most influential sportswriters during the first third of the 20th century, while setting fundamental changes in sports coverage during the decades to come.

I'm not just speculating, as you are attempting to do with Willard to somehow make this seem more right. I'm providing evidence that seems very convincing to a pulitzer prize winner and various other authors. If you have any information about Willard's wraps, though I don't think it pertinent but I do agree it would have made it a more even fight, do share it. I welcome that!

You seem stuck on morality. I'm not bothered by the morality of this. I'm stuck on fact. The gloves were loaded. The guy who wrapped his hands says it straight up. That's really all there is to it.

[billeau2]

So you conveniently are accepting of what that author says. But you do not accept what the trainer who was directly involved said. Doesn't that seem a bit biased to you? The trainer said specifically the tape causes unusual damage and that it was the reason Dempsey cut Willards face to ribbons.



If it were considered cheating, DeForest wouldn't have mentioned it. It was considered sneaky and a way to gain an unfair advantage, but not illegal due to rules being lax. Again, I think you are stuck on the legality of this issue, whereas I'm simply providing proof that he went the route of an unfair advantage that was not illegal due to lax rules. I think you've agreed to this already.



No, I don't see where you are going. He spoke up about it less than a year after the fight and shortly before Dempsey was to face Carpentier, who asked him to remove the tape from his wraps. He spoke on it while he was still working with Dempsey, and worked with him for years after that. So no, it wasn't years later. In fact, Arthur Daley mentioned specifically that it was compelling for the fact that it was less than a year after the fight.



Billeau, I don't know what you are basing this on. How can you speak for how much damage the hardened wraps caused Willard? That doesn't seem possible to me. I know there is debate about the degree of his damage, and some argue that he was just fine. Here is what I could find from the two men directly involved:



The part about him spitting out a tooth is interesting since some argued that he didn't lose any teeth at all, but Dempsey is directly refuting that. And it says that Dempsey was not one to toot his own horn, and felt sick at seeing Willard like that.

It was also said that Willards cheekbone was never broken, and Dempsey says it was. Of course, he's no doctor and I won't say he can diagnose that....but what about Willard who tried to provide physical evidence of that to someone?





Again, you are ignoring what the trainer said. He told you what they were. There was no reason for him to lie about it. It wasn't strictly speaking illegal, and he was still working with Demp. So I don't get why this is so hard to accept.




Why is that part of the problem? I don't see that as a problem at all. There was never any evidence that Willard used loaded gloves. There IS evidence that Dempsey used loaded gloves. If they both used loaded gloves, then they both used loaded gloves. It's not like I'm pulling evidence out of my ass. Once again, the people who reported on this were very well respected:

Artur Dailey, who commented on the exhumed article:


And the original piece was written by Joe Vila, who was the first sportswriter to use a typewriter at ringside doing round by round coverage and also went into the baseball Hall of Fame. He was the one who conducted the interview and wrote it up in the newspaper.



I'm not just speculating, as you are attempting to do with Willard to somehow make this seem more right. I'm providing evidence that seems very convincing to a pulitzer prize winner and various other authors. If you have any information about Willard's wraps, though I don't think it pertinent but I do agree it would have made it a more even fight, do share it. I welcome that!

Alas we are starting to go in circles my friend.

I will respond to the points but at this point I don't see any new insights to be gained here.

In the first comment, I was taking a source you gave and pointing out that the author cited used a modifier for good reason. And this is why its time to stop: When did I ever express agreement, or disagreement with this source? I don't even know to whom it is to be attributed. Im showing that in this author's day this event was already considered somewhat on shaky ground regarding any one set of circumstances to be agreed upon.

I don't know anything about this cutman and neither do you... I accept his account as compared to other accounts, not as an undivided whole. I don't know if he was motivated to say something, I don't know if he was like Doc kearns, or a moral paragon, though...if he was a paragon he might not have put those things in Dempsey's wraps to begin with! I know I know..."Billeau why are you accepting that Dempsey had something in his gloves now!" lol. Just saying, all sources have to be understood completely to ascertain their credability, not simply as "because he was a wrap man he is telling the truth about Willard." This would be true under some circumstances, but we have conflicting data don't we?

I am agreeing to a whole set of circumstances of which this fight is a part. The difference is that I don't feel we can put this fight in relief to cast aspersions. I am not above casting aspersions on anyone, but some things are ignorant and some things are an intentional wrong. There are lies of omission and lies that are active bold faced untruths. In this case Dempsey was ignorant on a way that most men of that time fighting were ignorant: there was racial separations which were deemed acceptable, there was a process of making sure your hands were protected and the other guy just had best be aware... and when people had a reason to not mention an inconvenient truth, if it would make them appear better, they would omit certain facts, which is something the wrap man may have done, otherwise, why the other accounts?

Well, you may consider the time frame as credible, but neither of us have a context for why and when this was mentioned. If he mentioned it causely then maybe it was no big deal (refer back to previous comments about the way guys prepared the hands) but we don't know either way do we?

Yes, the physical extent of the injuries was essentially unknown. MMA makes guys look like they were put through a shredder sometimes, and the injuries are minimal compared to a boxer who looks great and drops dead from a concussive bleed on the brain. Nobody knows except to say that when out bones are broken, we usually are limited. yes we can fight through a broken jaw, rib, but not what some attribute to Willard.

Ive explained why it was so hard to accept...YOu don''t agree. Answer me this: do you know how many people saw those wraps? Probably not. Im not saying the wrap man is irrelevant, he is one of many who have commented on the Willard fight as a witness, thats something you don't seem to want to accept.

The reason I asked about what Willard uses was because I was trying to get you to entertain the idea that fighters of that time had personalized procedures for preparing the hands for a fight. I don't have to know about the specific credabiity of witnesses because there are differnt accounts about this fight from witnesses.

Finally let me relate to you the idea of a "credible witness." Everyday people who study exterrestrial origins for life come up, there are ex NASA employees who claim to have seen bases on the moon. Some of these witnesses I feel are extremely credible Travesty...But alas, they have motivations, and reasons that I don't know about so I can never bet the farm so to speak on their testimony. On the other hand Jackie Gleason was married to a woman in later life who was known to be a very quiet, private, simple lady. this woman did not like the limelight, she was not into anything except Jackie, etc.

Well one day when an author was writing about Gleason after he passed, they spoke to her, specifically about Gleason's love of flying saucers. As they were leaving she sort of uneasily blurted out "oh well there is one thing you might like to know." She then relied the following: Gleason and Nixon were great friends and for Jackie' birthday Nixon decided to give him a special gift. Knowing Gleason's love of aliens Nixon went to Florida and picked Jacie up, flew with him down to Nevada and showed him bodies of the Aliens that were found in new Mexico.

Mrs Gleason knew this because this apparently freaked Jackie out. She said he came back and could not sleep, and was very upset about it.

Now Travesty, we all have our ideas about what constitutes a reliable witness: To me this is in my mind one of the best proofs we have for aliens and for what happened during a crash alleged of an alien ship...Why is this such good proof? I mean... Mrs Gleason was a simple woman, she didn't even think to mention it initially.

Thats just it, she had no motivation to lie here. She has no imgination to speak of, we know the kind of woman she was, we know that Nixon did in fact pick Gleason up, and that he was friends with Nixon. We know that Gleason was a space man affecinado! It all correlates!

We may have different ideas about witness credability. But the big difference is how we view the testimony of that wrap man, and how we look at opposing testimony that is contradictory. There is no contradictory testimony to mrs Gleason's recollection. There are people on record about this incident saying other things and there are many competing ideas about things like the extent of ijuries suffered by Willard. Even Dempsey seems unclear as to this fact, though I will give you that losing teeth, while it looks horrendous, is not really that big of an issue as compared to jaws shattering, people being blugeoned with hard objects wrapped in the hands, etc.

I don't see a purpose in continuing, as we are harping over the same issues. But I do feel I have explained my point of view so you can at least understand my perspective.

[travestyny]

Alas we are starting to go in circles my friend.

I will respond to the points but at this point I don't see any new insights to be gained here.

In the first comment, I was taking a source you gave and pointing out that the author cited used a modifier for good reason. And this is why its time to stop: When did I ever express agreement, or disagreement with this source? I don't even know to whom it is to be attributed. Im showing that in this author's day this event was already considered somewhat on shaky ground regarding any one set of circumstances to be agreed upon.

I don't know anything about this cutman and neither do you... I accept his account as compared to other accounts, not as an undivided whole. I don't know if he was motivated to say something, I don't know if he was like Doc kearns, or a moral paragon, though...if he was a paragon he might not have put those things in Dempsey's wraps to begin with! I know I know..."Billeau why are you accepting that Dempsey had something in his gloves now!" lol. Just saying, all sources have to be understood completely to ascertain their credability, not simply as "because he was a wrap man he is telling the truth about Willard." This would be true under some circumstances, but we have conflicting data don't we?

I am agreeing to a whole set of circumstances of which this fight is a part. The difference is that I don't feel we can put this fight in relief to cast aspersions. I am not above casting aspersions on anyone, but some things are ignorant and some things are an intentional wrong. There are lies of omission and lies that are active bold faced untruths. In this case Dempsey was ignorant on a way that most men of that time fighting were ignorant: there was racial separations which were deemed acceptable, there was a process of making sure your hands were protected and the other guy just had best be aware... and when people had a reason to not mention an inconvenient truth, if it would make them appear better, they would omit certain facts, which is something the wrap man may have done, otherwise, why the other accounts?

Well, you may consider the time frame as credible, but neither of us have a context for why and when this was mentioned. If he mentioned it causely then maybe it was no big deal (refer back to previous comments about the way guys prepared the hands) but we don't know either way do we?

Yes, the physical extent of the injuries was essentially unknown. MMA makes guys look like they were put through a shredder sometimes, and the injuries are minimal compared to a boxer who looks great and drops dead from a concussive bleed on the brain. Nobody knows except to say that when out bones are broken, we usually are limited. yes we can fight through a broken jaw, rib, but not what some attribute to Willard.

Ive explained why it was so hard to accept...YOu don''t agree. Answer me this: do you know how many people saw those wraps? Probably not. Im not saying the wrap man is irrelevant, he is one of many who have commented on the Willard fight as a witness, thats something you don't seem to want to accept.

The reason I asked about what Willard uses was because I was trying to get you to entertain the idea that fighters of that time had personalized procedures for preparing the hands for a fight. I don't have to know about the specific credabiity of witnesses because there are differnt accounts about this fight from witnesses.

Finally let me relate to you the idea of a "credible witness." Everyday people who study exterrestrial origins for life come up, there are ex NASA employees who claim to have seen bases on the moon. Some of these witnesses I feel are extremely credible Travesty...But alas, they have motivations, and reasons that I don't know about so I can never bet the farm so to speak on their testimony. On the other hand Jackie Gleason was married to a woman in later life who was known to be a very quiet, private, simple lady. this woman did not like the limelight, she was not into anything except Jackie, etc.

Well one day when an author was writing about Gleason after he passed, they spoke to her, specifically about Gleason's love of flying saucers. As they were leaving she sort of uneasily blurted out "oh well there is one thing you might like to know." She then relied the following: Gleason and Nixon were great friends and for Jackie' birthday Nixon decided to give him a special gift. Knowing Gleason's love of aliens Nixon went to Florida and picked Jacie up, flew with him down to Nevada and showed him bodies of the Aliens that were found in new Mexico.

Mrs Gleason knew this because this apparently freaked Jackie out. She said he came back and could not sleep, and was very upset about it.

Now Travesty, we all have our ideas about what constitutes a reliable witness: To me this is in my mind one of the best proofs we have for aliens and for what happened during a crash alleged of an alien ship...Why is this such good proof? I mean... Mrs Gleason was a simple woman, she didn't even think to mention it initially.

Thats just it, she had no motivation to lie here. She has no imgination to speak of, we know the kind of woman she was, we know that Nixon did in fact pick Gleason up, and that he was friends with Nixon. We know that Gleason was a space man affecinado! It all correlates!

We may have different ideas about witness credability. But the big difference is how we view the testimony of that wrap man, and how we look at opposing testimony that is contradictory. There is no contradictory testimony to mrs Gleason's recollection. There are people on record about this incident saying other things and there are many competing ideas about things like the extent of ijuries suffered by Willard. Even Dempsey seems unclear as to this fact, though I will give you that losing teeth, while it looks horrendous, is not really that big of an issue as compared to jaws shattering, people being blugeoned with hard objects wrapped in the hands, etc.

I don't see a purpose in continuing, as we are harping over the same issues. But I do feel I have explained my point of view so you can at least understand my perspective.

I think you are leaving out some things.

1. Yes, the trainer who was directly responsible for wrapping his hands said he used the tape.

2. The trainer also said he used the tape with other boxers, mainly Kid McCoy.

3. It was reported that Carpentier asked Dempsey to remove this tape.

4. You asked about this....the reason that it was mentioned is because people had speculated that Demp used aluminum on his wraps, and DeForest wanted to dispute that.

5. This information was given directly to one of the most noteworthy boxing reporters of the time, at a time when the trainer was still working with Demp.

6. You yourself mentioned that this was done back in those days.

So with all of that being considered, how likely do you think this story to be true? That's my last question here.


As for your question: How many people saw the wrap. I can't possibly know. The book excerpt that I sent you said one observer compared it to bicycle tape.

What I find hard to believe is that they guy comes out and tells you exactly what he did... and there is every excuse in the book being given about it. If that were the case, we shouldn't believe Resto. No one questions that he had plaster in his gloves, but some that romanticize Dempsey don't want to believe his trainer (not including you here).

Arthur Daley believes it.
Joe Vila believes it.
The trainer said it.

Dempsey never denied the use of bicycle tape. He denied the plaster story. You mentioned that loads of people don't accept this story. I don't know whom those people are. I can find plenty who Do believe it. Here is another (and I'm sure I could find more).

All the evidence points to a more mundane explanation: Dempsey wore handwraps wound with a tightening adhesive, likened to bicycle tape—more than sufficient to make his hands feel like rocks. The tape was not illegal at the time, and the testimony of multiple parties suggests that Willard’s people made no objection to it.
https://www.paulbeston.com/blog/the-...f-jack-dempsey

He claims Willard made no objection. It was reported that Willard did indeed lean forward and peer at the wraps. Whether he recognized the tape or not, I don't know. Perhaps he did. But again, that's not the point. The point is plenty do believe this story to be credible because it makes sense. Willard had never even been knocked down before this fight, if I remember correctly.

Again, my final question is...on a scale of 1-10, how believable would you say this story is. We can leave it at that.

Good convo as always, bro!

[billeau2]

I think you are leaving out some things.

1. Yes, the trainer who was directly responsible for wrapping his hands said he used the tape.

2. The trainer also said he used the tape with other boxers, mainly Kid McCoy.

3. It was reported that Carpentier asked Dempsey to remove this tape.

4. You asked about this....the reason that it was mentioned is because people had speculated that Demp used aluminum on his wraps, and DeForest wanted to dispute that.

5. This information was given directly to one of the most noteworthy boxing reporters of the time, at a time when the trainer was still working with Demp.

6. You yourself mentioned that this was done back in those days.

So with all of that being considered, how likely do you think this story to be true? That's my last question here.


As for your question: How many people saw the wrap. I can't possibly know. The book excerpt that I sent you said one observer compared it to bicycle tape.

What I find hard to believe is that they guy comes out and tells you exactly what he did... and there is every excuse in the book being given about it. If that were the case, we shouldn't believe Resto. No one questions that he had plaster in his gloves, but some that romanticize Dempsey don't want to believe his trainer (not including you here).

Arthur Daley believes it.
Joe Vila believes it.
The trainer said it.

Dempsey never denied the use of bicycle tape. He denied the plaster story. You mentioned that loads of people don't accept this story. I don't know whom those people are. I can find plenty who Do believe it. Here is another (and I'm sure I could find more).



He claims Willard made no objection. It was reported that Willard did indeed lean forward and peer at the wraps. Whether he recognized the tape or not, I don't know. Perhaps he did. But again, that's not the point. The point is plenty do believe this story to be credible because it makes sense. Willard had never even been knocked down before this fight, if I remember correctly.

Again, my final question is...on a scale of 1-10, how believable would you say this story is. We can leave it at that.

Good convo as always, bro!

It would depend on what part of the story. Some type of hard tapelike, rubber like material is believable, it was a common occurence. But past that it gets sketchy... Then we get difference accounts.

But when asking me to consent to a credability check...Be careful! To say "Willard had never been knocked down before" implies lots of things Travesty. Dempsey was an incredible puncher and Willard being knocked around because of wrappings is not a credible conclusion. Its possible that a type of cut would be produced, even that is "iffy" to me.

Incidently I never denied the substance theory, I denied where it evolved, at that time no less! People were ready to say Dempsey had a horseshoe in his glove lol.

I think the misunderstanding about the substance aspect is something I asked you a while back: Does it make a difference if a fighter puts something on his hands directly to harden them? as compared to putting something in the wraps? So yes, fighters did these things, and none of them would knock a man senseless so much as guarantee that in knocking man, the hands would not break. Now do you get that digression?

Ill write later , family in lol