How would dempsey do against todays Heavyweights?

[travestyny]

Before I can buy into the Dempsey story I need to hear a first-hand witnessed account, from someone who isn't in the position to inflate his own worth by claiming a fix.

Here is yet another mention of it. It says Carpentier's manager demanded that Dempsey remove the tape. However, remember what Battling Nelson quoted. McCoy would remove it but leave the last and most dangerous strand that was too difficult to take off.

Click the image to enlarge it.

The reason that DeForest wasn't shy about mentioning it is because it wasn't strictly speaking illegal as you can read above, but it was certainly used to gain a sneaky advantage and it indeed was loaded wraps.

We see here that he was attempting to use it against an opponent who expected only gauze to be used. And even removing it, it's possible that there remained some, as per the story of McCoy who was sneaky enough to offer that it be removed himself, but left the final strip across the knuckles.

Add that to there already being su****ion of the use of aluminum pads in the Willard fight, which Deforest denied and stated was instead this hardening tape that causes "unusual damage," and I think we can piece together what happened there.

[Zaroku]

He'd do his best.... Like any real man would... I don't know nor guess... He'd most definitely do his fest...

[Dempsey-Louis]

No no, it wasn't you that compared the writer to an amateur. It was The Old Left Hook.


But the reason that I thought maybe your reasoning for not believing this story was because of you looking up to Dempsey (besides of course having his name in your handle) is because you said that McCoy is just an outright cheat, but McCoy was also trained by DeForest who said that he wrapped their hands with the same exact thing.

This was less than a year after the fight that the trainer said this, and Dempsey's career wasn't over. It was before the Carpentier fight. And the trainer was defending Dempsey from accusations that Dempsey used aluminum pads on his knuckles, which makes it clear that there was already su****ion about the wraps at that time.

So we have a trainer who said he used this tape to cause unusual damage with another fighter, claims he also used it for Dempsey at the time that he was still training Dempsey, and we have evidence that people were su****ious about Dempsey's wraps even before the plaster of paris story.

I just don't see what is so unrealistic or how you can say the trainer is lying just to make himself seem great. If he wanted to do that, he could just talk about strategy. This is the paragraph that was immediately before the paragraph about wrapping Dempsey's hands:



He could have just stopped there, but he chose to defend Dempsey against the aluminum pads accusation. Why do you believe that McCoy used a similar trick but not Dempsey? That's what I'm not following.


If you don't believe the man who directly wrapped his hands....I don't know whom you would believe besides Dempsey himself.

I don't think McCoy was necessarily anymore of a cheat thn most I was just enjoying he story so I replied that way, making a reference to how the 'old timers' acted.

And as I said before I agree there has been much glove fixing through-out the game's history and you are correct there was speculation about Dempsey's gloves right from the start. But then again there is always su****ions floating around after a big fight, especially when the outcome is so dramatic (over the top) and unexpected.

You are also right a trainer can and does take credit for his strategy and that does make him look good (all though it is difficult to see exactly what strategy Dempsey was supposedly employing as he pounded on Willard, LOL). But a trainer taking credit for his fighter's victory is done by every trainer, it's only when they claim they went outside the box (did something special) do they get to stand out from the other trainers. There lies the motive to make **** up.

But in the end this debate will go on long pass you and I, that I think we both can agree on.

That's not just my screen name, Dempsey-Louis are my children's' names. My little girl is named Dempsey Marie, my son, Louis. So yes, guilty I am of carry around a big Dempsey bias.

But I will stand on my argument, there just isn't any real empirical (nonbias) evidence of fixed gloves, just romanticized 'stories' told by motivated people.

P.S. Do you believe Dempsey was poisoned before the '26 Tunney fight? I think Arnold Rothstein had him poisoned. We could argue about that. I got a **** load of circumstantial evidence for that one.

[travestyny]

(all though it is difficult to see exactly what strategy Dempsey was supposedly employing as he pounded on Willard, LOL). But a trainer taking credit for his fighter's victory is done by every trainer, it's only when they claim they went outside the box (did something special) do they get to stand out from the other trainers. There lies the motive to make **** up.

But in the end this debate will go on long pass you and I, that I think we both can agree on.

That's not just my screen name, Dempsey-Louis are my children's' names. My little girl is named Dempsey Marie, my son, Louis. So yes, guilty I am of carry around a big Dempsey bias.

But I will stand on my argument, there just isn't any real empirical (nonbias) evidence of fixed gloves, just romanticized 'stories' told by motivated people.

P.S. Do you believe Dempsey was poisoned before the '26 Tunney fight? I think Arnold Rothstein had him poisoned. We could argue about that. I got a **** load of circumstantial evidence for that one.

Man, the bolded part really had me dying

Fair enough man, and fair play! Much respect to you. And I think those are pretty damn cool children's names! Cong**** on being a father!

I've not heard much about Dempsey being poisoned! You'll have to drop the story sometime!!!

[BattlingNelson]

I don't think McCoy was necessarily anymore of a cheat thn most I was just enjoying he story so I replied that way, making a reference to how the 'old timers' acted.

And as I said before I agree there has been much glove fixing through-out the game's history and you are correct there was speculation about Dempsey's gloves right from the start. But then again there is always su****ions floating around after a big fight, especially when the outcome is so dramatic (over the top) and unexpected.

You are also right a trainer can and does take credit for his strategy and that does make him look good (all though it is difficult to see exactly what strategy Dempsey was supposedly employing as he pounded on Willard, LOL). But a trainer taking credit for his fighter's victory is done by every trainer, it's only when they claim they went outside the box (did something special) do they get to stand out from the other trainers. There lies the motive to make **** up.

But in the end this debate will go on long pass you and I, that I think we both can agree on.

That's not just my screen name, Dempsey-Louis are my children's' names. My little girl is named Dempsey Marie, my son, Louis. So yes, guilty I am of carry around a big Dempsey bias.

But I will stand on my argument, there just isn't any real empirical (nonbias) evidence of fixed gloves, just romanticized 'stories' told by motivated people.

P.S. Do you believe Dempsey was poisoned before the '26 Tunney fight? I think Arnold Rothstein had him poisoned. We could argue about that. I got a **** load of circumstantial evidence for that one.

Cool with your kids names mate. You are some real boxing fan!!

Oh and do make a thread about Dempsey,’s alleged poisoning. That’s what this forum is for!

[mickey malone]

Cool with your kids names mate. You are some real boxing fan!!

Oh and do make a thread about Dempsey,’s alleged poisoning. That’s what this forum is for!

Yes, he is deluded, but it's tickled me lol

[billeau2]

It is not a matter of looking up to Dempsey it is just that these accusations never come with any empirical evidence. One finds themself trying to prove a negative against an unproven accusation.

Although I see where you said I was confused about the 'getting wet part.' Sorry.

The supposed heat in Havana 1915 (Johnson-Willard) is another good example of a rumor that just won't go away.

I can point to dozens of books, quotes, and websites that claim it was over 100 degrees that day, (one makes the ridiculous claim that it was 105 degrees) but in fact that day in Havana the temperature was in the mid-seventies with light clouds.

Johnson had reason to lie about the heat, he needed an excuse and his lie got such legs under it, that today it is considered fact. (The only website that doesn't make the silly claim is BoxRec, no one else ever checked, they just repeated the story.)

I never meant to call anyone an amateur, but winning a Pulitzer Prize doesn't necessarily make someone a good historian. Much of what got into the papers (like today's media) is 'yellow' (sensationalized) reporting. Scandal and conspiracies sell newspapers; because something is reported only tells us that someone actually said it, not that it happened. But see, I am back to trying to prove a negative and that's impossible.

In the Dempsey case physical evidence is now, of course, impossible to gain, but I need at least one source that doesn't have a motive to lie; all these claims about doctoring Dempsey's gloves alway come from someone who wants to take partial credit for Dempsey's victory. Managers and trainers are always doing that.

Here's another quick one, Angelo Dundee never had to pull Ali from his stool the night Ali got liniment in his eyes. Ali stood up on his own (blinking) and was willing to fight. For years Dundee told the story how Ali wanted to quit, how he pulled Ali from his stool and then took the stool away so he wouldn't sit back down. All bogus, he just wanted to make himself important. Watch the film, someone else pulls the stool away well after Ali has already been walking around trying to clear his eyes.

Before I can buy into the Dempsey story I need to hear a first-hand witnessed account, from someone who isn't in the position to inflate his own worth by claiming a fix. When it comes to these kinds of claims managers and trainers are useless sources, they are often self-aggrandizing yarns. Managers and trainers are always trying to take partial credit for their fighters victories, that's why they always talk in first-person plural "we" as if they were actually fighting the fight along side their fighter.

Agreed 100% Norman Mailer was a great writer and when he wrote about George Foreman in Playboy of all places, he made Foreman out to be a shark, a monster with no conscience, a sociopathic killer who destroyed heavyweight bags and men... And it was great to read, but accurate? Well...George foreman was also an immature kid, a man child whom, by his own admission had to stop boxing for a while and reevaluate life.

It seems like many individuals were gunning for Dempsey at points in his life. The thing is.... and people are so ready to neglect this...The thing about Dempsey that enemies and friend all seem to admit is that Dempsey was a straight shooter. he was honest about his feelings. perhaps some of the stories about Dempsey are worth considering but, for one thing when Wills was challenging, he was not that good, so it was not strange for Dempsey to avoid him, and most stories about hand wraps, etc seem very convenient when they make an appearance.

The thing that everyone has to be aware of is that fighters before the modern era, characterized by the advent of Louis, did things for different reasons than modern fighters. Kid Mccoy, Dempsey, etc were right near the bare knuckle era and in that era the major preoccupation with fighters were the hands: Keeping them from breaking. For example, take a full shot at a person's forehead and see how your hand feels. Boxers, like Mike Tyson against Green for example, break the hand when it is not gloved, happens a lot in street fights (take it from a former bouncer).

When gloves were first used, and were small, the problems with the hand did not diminish. The hands had to be wrapped in a manner where they would not break and this was the reason why corners tried to do different wraps, not to hit harder. Interesting aside is that boxing trainers cited Kid Mccoy as using a corkskrew motion to "cut" the opponent and to jar the opponent at the last instant, so whatever wraps he was aiming to use were more to keep the integrity of the gloves not so much the impact. But fighters and their corners were tasked with making sure the hands could be protected.

[The Old LefHook]

I entertain all ideas.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Dempsey should time travel to now. We want him to see ****** on the streets holding hands and inducted into the armed services. When he sees how moderns pule and squall, his confidence is sure to grow.

Is there a problem with ****** holding hands and being in the armed services?

[Mr.MojoRisin']

The only fighter that could potentially give Dempsey trouble is Joshua. Not in a Gene Tunney sort of way but a Luis Firpo if you catch my drift. Although his stamina isn't good he can definitely brawl for a few rounds before he seriously gasses. Him and Dempsey would get into heated exchanges but the difference between Joshua and Firpo is Joshua isn't gutsy enough to come out and put everything into a right hand at the opening bell.

It's hard to say how Dempsey does against giants because the only fight we have of Dempsey against a giant, Dempsey massacres him in the first round. Would be interesting to see comparisons like the very short Fulton fight and the Morris fights.