Compound thread: My points about Dempsey, Truth Claims and Evidence in boxing history

[billeau2]

This thread will serve a couple of purposes. The reason it is being posted here is because I believe we all, as any group that looks carefully at forensic events, could take some time to understand the value of different types of proof. There are a lot of claims about the fighters we love, and love to hate lol, and there is different kinds of information about these fighters to draw upon.

I also am using this thread to restate in total transparency my position about the allegations about Dempsey and his hands during the Willard fight. I am restating this so there are no misunderstandings about where I stand on this issue. It is right here for any future references.

[GhostofDempsey]

Can we lay odds on how many posts Travesty will make in this thread? What's the over/under?

[billeau2]

My Position on the Dempsey Fight With Willard

Historically there has been a lot of back and fourth on certain fights: For example, the Johnson Willard Fight in Cuba...Did Johnson bow out? Another Willard fight would be the Dempsey Willard fight, where various allegations have surfaced regarding alleged hand treatments used by Dempsey.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/dempsey_gloves.html

The following is an account of this fight by a man regarded as knowledgable in historical matters, it gives a basic summation of the issues as they have come down over time: It is worth noting that the initial claims made were: for plaster of paris, a metal object of some kind or another, and not any other possible substance. It is worth noting that according to this information at least, there appeared no substances in Dempsey's glove, and...that plaster of paris, when tested would not hold up anyway.

This story and information is relevant because it leads to HOW and WHY claims of other substances might have been used by Dempsey in his fight with Willard. There is certainly a reason to look carefully at this fight: Dempsey was an underdog and Dempsey did a lot of damage to a much bigger man... And Dempsey was, like most fighting men at the time, managed by a bunch of near-do-wells.

Lets look further at this situation: The people Dempsey was involved with Rickhardt and Kearns among them, were not choir boys, in fact Kearns would later say that he had a bet on the fight and was motivated to have Dempsey finish Willard off. Its also worth noting that fighters at Dempsey's time used many preparations on the hands. Linaments, adhesives, and many folk concoctions that were the property of the trainer were used: But there is some confusion on this issue. In fact the major problem for the fighter was having his hands hold up, not becoming virtual brass knuckles, and while not breaking the hands may coincide with making the hands hard, there is a difference between the two.

Deforrest, Dempsey's trainer, who also trained Kid McCoy, later made a claim that Dempsey used bike Tape which somehow becomes a very hard substance allowing a fighter to inflict more damage to the opponent. If this tape was transparent, then maybe nobody would see this tape when part of it was peeled off. Apparently Dempsey's trainer allegedly had the kid (MCcoy) peel off a part of the adhesive and then wrap the hands with this tape affixed right under the observers noses.

So the question is: Did Dempsey have on his hands: a substance that someone could demonstrate, allowed him to do excess damage to Willard? Here is why I believe we cannot demonstrate that there was a hardened tape that made Dempsey's hands more dangerous to Willard.

1) The very first problem we run into is when "regular explanations" suffice to explain something that is being called "extra-ordinary:" Kid Mccoy and Dempsey were both hard hitters. Dempsey had shown devistating punching ability. He was an underdog in that fight, but he had demonstrated that he was a puncher. Kid Mccoy likewise...There is an eyewitness account of Mccoy, with regular wraps and glove, hitting a British trainer and author with his corkskrew punch. The author states unequivocally that the punch and motion cuts into his flesh, loosened a tooth, and was on the whole, a hard blow. He attributes the cutting damage to Mccoy's corkscrew motion, a natural movement of the arm. Dempsey likewise hit much harder than perhaps any heavyweight up to that point. Many old time trainers alive from Dempsey on through to Tyson felt Dempsey hit the hardest, along with Tyson.

The point here is there is a natural explanation for why Dempsey beat up Willard. Combine this with the account given with eyewitnesses claiming that nothing was in the wraps, and that plaster of paris does not hold, and we do not need any substances to explain Dempsey's performance.

1.5) When we look at Deforrest, Rickhardt, kearns, etc we have to look at two things: How accurate is their information? How accurate is any anecdotal source? and what of the tape itself?

Lets start with the second part...how accurate is any eyewitness testimony? There are people who are doctors, lawyers, scientists who make extraordinary claims: Generally we are told that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." We will discuss the proof later, the question is when we get someone who has seen a flying saucer for example, they may not be crazy, but do we simply take their word for it? The burden of proof is greater, not lesser when a claim that is extra ordinary is made. On a daily basis I pour over evidence and claims made for extraterestials. Even Billy Meyer, who actually had photographic evidence that was taken and recirculated, was put down as a fraud. So the fact that a trainer made a statement in and of itself is not a very high level of truth. We will get into corraberation shortly.

The claim some make is that there was a tape used on Dempsey's hands. This tape is described in a manner that no known substance has ever been described: It is a tape that can be virtually unseen on the knuckles, and will harden to such a degree that through a glove and wraps it will cause great destruction to an individual.

Not one witness has produced such a tape. In the most complete compendium of Hardware, the Sears Catalog Bike Tape is described as a tape that "is designed to remain soft" like a tire tread." Yet, we are told that there is a tape that is called bike tape by the trainer, that hardens on contact? there are adhesives, glues and rubber cements that harden to a degree, but...these substances would stink, they do not harden much, they are for adhesion, and this is not what the trainer talked about. There does not appear to be a tape that can harden into a stone like strand on the knuckles that ever existed. And hat would this tape react with? sweat? Water? If sweat hardened it, wouldn't water in the atmosphere?

So we are told that because Dempsey's trainer, Deforrest, and other witnesses describe this tape that it must have existed? If the tape is a physical impossibility, might Dempsey's trainer have had another motivation to describe a tape that he used with his fighters?

I don't like to speculate, but eyewitness accounts are often not reliable because of our perception, our motivations, and the failure of the memory to recall events objectively. Perhaps the trainer found a very strong tape with which to wrap his fighters hands in and exxagerated, perhaps he took the tape and sheathed it with some other adhesive... The point here is the physical impossibility of taking a thin tape, and making into what would have to be, virtual brass knuckles. Remember this "tape" would have to function through wraps and a glove.

Common sense should tell us that it is impossible for any substance to function in the capacity of this so called "magic tape."

Regarding corraberation of Deforrest's account: When we combine the unreliability of the men involved...virually all men in Dempsey's camp had motivations to say and do certain things, and none were trustworthy... There was not one objective witness to describe where this tape could be procured, how it was administered, etc. Lets also remember that in the past Dempsey's camp had cooked up other tales, including that he had objects in his glove (proved to be false), etc.

here we will apply Ockham's Razor: When we are looking at an explanation, usually the simple explanation is the correct explanation. For example, Dempsey went on a rampage and was able, as a fantastic puncher, to beat Willard from pillar to post. Dempsey was known to have these abilities, it is not like Paulie Malignogi suddenly started KO' ing his opponents.

Lets say we do go by eyewitness accounts here: Despite their unreliability, despite the fact that no such substance exists as the magic tape...bike tape was designed to remain soft, not harden, if we go by cox's article, there were credible witnesses who stated Dempsey's hands were clean when the wraps came off, no magic tapes, etc. So there are witnesses that contradict the witnesses claiming that there was a magical substance...we will get into Dempsey's character later, because this is also important.

Why would Dempsey's trainer say there was a magical tape on Dempsey and McCoy's hands? I feel this is the only real issue that can be debated here frankly. I don't know! Maybe he was protecting Dempsey being accused of a greater problem (having a hard substance in the glove) and thought the tape story would be legit...Maybe he thought the tape acted differently than it did... Who knows? Does it really matter? If I wanted to prove such a story I would have the tape with me and wrap a hand with it.


2) When it is alleged Willard was damaged by a substance it is important to understand how we would have to determine this fact. We would in fact need two Willards subject to the same beating, with one dempsey wearing the substance in question, the other willard fighting dempsey with no substance in the glove. Otherwise how can anybody say, JUST from the condition of Willard after the fight, that he was hit by a doctored glove? It would be different if we were looking for evidence of cement, or brass knuckles because we could perhaps, see examples of that on Willard: But how do we determine the damage caused, by a substance that we do not even know if it exists? that is supposed to cut up the opponent?

Could the tape be so abrasive that it cuts through the gloves? if so were dempsey's gloves ripped open from the inside? We know Dempsey's hands were checked after the fight for objects by reliable eye witnesses. We need to know HOW something can be done before determining if it can be done... Again What Aristotle called "Horse sense" we are looking for a thin sheath that is strong as banded steel and can cut through a glove and wraps, and remain virtually undetectable.

3) Historicallly in Dempsey's time, fighters often used preparations on the hands. The major focus was on making the hands strong and unbreakable. Breaking a hand was a sure way to lose a fight after all....Furthermore, trainers were older and wiser than the fighters and it is perfectly conceviable that things were applied to the hands of Dempsey he was unaware of. But, Dempsey would know about the application of a tape on the knuckles, so we would have to assume Dempsey would be aware of such a treatment, lets hold on to that for now.


regarding these applications of a substance, it would have been par for the course to check a fighters hands as the opposing fighter, watch wraps be applied, etc. It does not show unnatural su****ion to want to check and to ask a fighter to rewrap the hands before a fight. This next point is hard to grasp, It is tempting to speculate that, for example, when Carpentiere asked to check Dempsey's wraps, that he was looking for a specific item, nd indeed, a rumor might have made him look for a magical tape of one sort or another, but if a fighter simply wants to make sure in general that a fighter is clean, they can ask for a rewrap. It is not a strange request for the times...thats the point here.

Along these lines it is asked why Kid Mccoy did certain things when his hands were wrapped... I do not know what fighters and trainers believed. I do not know what linaments and items were used by fighters trying to cheat, or trying to protect the hands...I just know the laws of physics as they apply to solids and the laws of evidence: Dempsey was never found with a strange tape that is soft and then becomes so hard that it allows for punching and cutting extra hard. there is no record of such a substance existing that I am aware of, and Sears would have the most extensive hardware collection of adhesives, bicycle tubing and everything in between. There are tapes that stay soft BTW, there are adhesives that harden, virtually all need time, dri air, or a flame.

Final points:

Lets briefly look at the larger picture, Dempsey and my claims to wrap this up (pardon the pun).

Historically fighters used a lot of stuff on their hands. Trainers had their own special recipes for their fighters. No doubt that DeForrest may have been hyperbolizing his wrapping technique when claiming how a magical, unseen tape could produce such force!

Lets talk Kid Mccoy. He was indeed a scoundrel. Any fighter in those days had to slither with the snakes but for Mccoy it was probably not such a hard adjustment to make. We have to be careful not to tie Dempsey into Mccoy. They were very different sorts.

lets talk Dempsey. He grew up ignorant and poor. Naturally he was mentored by men who were not the best of character. Dempsey never broke the color line as a fighter, he was a savage competitor...but as an adult, and after he boxed Dempsey learned and was not a rascist. He also was by all accounts a very intelligent and ethical guy. It is somewhat uncharacteristic that he would cheat. kearns even has to indicate Dempsey was an unwilling dupe in his ploy to cement the wraps... Why would Kearns, in this tall tale frame Dempsey as a dupe when he wanted to impugne Dempsey? Because he knew nobody would believe that Dempsey would go along with a metal horseshoe in the gloves type situation.

So one would have to believe that Dempsey was aware of this magic tape on his hands. Or did his trainer just trick him? that defies common sense. This is very important: If DeForrest was telling a fact about a magic tape that helped him wrap his fighters hands, what did Dempsey say about it? If Deforrest was coming clean to help his fighter dispel rumors that kearns came out with, why wouldn't Dempsey say "yeah we used a tape that helped, what of it?" What did Dempsey say about this tape?


So this is my position as transparent as I can make it:

1) I do not know what wrappings were used on Dempsey's hands. I just know that common sense, Ockham's Razor, Science, and competing eye witness testimony, tell me that a substance which does not seem to exist, could not materially affect an event, impossibly through wraps and gloves.

2) To state that because of actions taken by Kid McCoy, allegedlly to hide this magic tape, and his trainer later saying this magic tape exists and materially affected the outcome of the Willard fight, needs a much higher burden of truth when common sense seems to indicate otherwise.

3) There is a context to this: there are in fact competing eyewitness accounts (see source material in response), there is a history of claims being fabricated against Dempsey by his camp, like Kearns for example... all of which have been demonstrated to be false when brought to the light. Therefore when we strain the credability by suggesting an alternative that is even more outlandish, we can see a motivation to do so.

I do not accept the existence of a magical tape that can act with such tensil strength and purpose when there is no record of any such tape ever existing...keep in mind that the tape was described as "Bike Tape" which does the exact opposite of what this bike tape allegedly does: It stays soft like tire rubber.

I do not know what extraordinary damage is when discussing two fighters who were devistating hitters... What is ordinary damage for Mccoy and Dempsey? I question whether any trainer, or other boxing pundit can state that a physical substance simply put on the knuckles caused extra damage, with certainty. When I say this I am not saying that something on the knuckles does not/can't cause damage, I am saying we cannot measure and know exactly what that damage necessarily is, with the same certainty we can measure a building and know the square footage. I even question whether these substances protected the hands to any degree... or whether they were simply hopeful thinking. Are there exceptions to this? Well...we certainly know if a piece of hard cement is put in the gloves more damage will occur. We have understanding that hard objects with mass and density cause force. We did not need to know the extent of Miguel Cotto's injuries to know what happened in that fight with Margarito's gloves.

I base this conclusion on studying the physiology of punching, which demonstrates why hitting was not always about punching the hardest, rather about accuracy.

When I say I do not know I mean it...There might well be some magical trick that Dempsey's trainer concocted. But the proof of that is lacking.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

[billeau2]

Can we lay odds on how many posts Travesty will make in this thread? What's the over/under?

He may want to go to the Dome. Frankly I would prefer to make this constructive. Either way it won't be my focus on this thread. If he wants a back and fourth this is not the place for it. we did that and as long as he does not put words in my mouth he can believe what he likes, or he can start a war in the dome.... his choice.

[billeau2]

The remainder of this thread's Purpose

I tried a thread like this once before. AS we look at historical situations, the proof we get for conclusions becomes very important. When we are trying to establish the truth regarding a fighter, a circumstance the quality of the evidence is really important and the quality has to do with the source material.

With that said lets look at types of anecdotal proof:

We had trainers and unfortunately many of these trainers have passed. What makes a lot of the testimony of a man like Duva, Cus, etc is that they have lived and experienced the fighters they talk about. When we get information that is not second hand, but from a trainer who has worked with the fighter spoken of, we are getting valuable information because of that connection.

Its different when we get that testimony second hand: It becomes increasingly less valuable as a matter of fact.

What about people in the fight game, people like writers for example? Traditionally sports writers seemed to know the fight game well in the past. How credible are their opinions regarding fighters? I would say one thing to be aware of is in my generation (mid 1960's born) many of the writers in the papers, grew up hard scrabble and knew a thng or two about fist fights and the fight game. Guys like Larry Merchant for example. These men seemed to know the fighters well and took the time to write thoughtful columns about boxing and wrassling! back then the wrasslers, even doing the works (throwing the fights) were respected as sportsmen, probably because of the work required to fall properly among other things.

My first question would be if the internet with its new ways has taken basic skills, writing ability, content knowledge and maintained them. Does a writer today have the background and knowledge to know boxing like it used to be known?

[joeandthebums]

Good thread.

Not a Dempsey expert, but what little I can add is that Dempsey entered the ring with his hands wrapped; pic below.



No issues raised from Willard's camp or Willard himself when they shook hands.

The bike tape was well known by trainers of the time, usually black.

[travestyny]

I tried a thread like this once before. AS we look at historical situations, the proof we get for conclusions becomes very important. When we are trying to establish the truth regarding a fighter, a circumstance the quality of the evidence is really important and the quality has to do with the source material.

With that said lets look at types of anecdotal proof:

We had trainers and unfortunately many of these trainers have passed. What makes a lot of the testimony of a man like Duva, Cus, etc is that they have lived and experienced the fighters they talk about. When we get information that is not second hand, but from a trainer who has worked with the fighter spoken of, we are getting valuable information because of that connection.

Its different when we get that testimony second hand: It becomes increasingly less valuable as a matter of fact.

What about people in the fight game, people like writers for example? Traditionally sports writers seemed to know the fight game well in the past. How credible are their opinions regarding fighters? I would say one thing to be aware of is in my generation (mid 1960's born) many of the writers in the papers, grew up hard scrabble and knew a thng or two about fist fights and the fight game. Guys like Larry Merchant for example. These men seemed to know the fighters well and took the time to write thoughtful columns about boxing and wrassling! back then the wrasslers, even doing the works (throwing the fights) were respected as sportsmen, probably because of the work required to fall properly among other things.

My first question would be if the internet with its new ways has taken basic skills, writing ability, content knowledge and maintained them. Does a writer today have the background and knowledge to know boxing like it used to be known?

I find your leading post here to be misleading and untruthful. I'll point out the reasons why in a second, but let me address this first to give you something to ponder.

"When we get information that is not second hand, but from a trainer who has worked with the fighter spoken of, we are getting valuable information because of that connection."

Here you say that valuable information comes directly from a trainer.....but Jimmy Deforest was Dempsey's trainer. Yet, you dismiss his statements about what happened in that fight.

I'll repost the information about that soon, but isn't that a contradiction?

[travestyny]

Good thread.

Not a Dempsey expert, but what little I can add is that Dempsey entered the ring with his hands wrapped; pic below.



No issues raised from Willard's camp or Willard himself when they shook hands.

The bike tape was well known by trainers of the time, usually black.

I've been wondering about this also, because something doesn't add up. Why did Dempsey make so many lies about the wrapping of his hands. Look at his statement:

“Ridiculous;” answered the Manassa Mauler. “I taped my own hands and cut the tape off after the fight in the ring.”

Dempsey laughed when he heard of the method his canny | old trainer was supposed to have | used. Then his eyes hardened and he said; "I put gauze on my hands, then put black tape over the gauze...at no time were my hands soaked with water...it j doesn’t make sense...the gloves would never go on.”
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=...19640128.2.101

1. Eyewitnesses state that he didn't tape his hands himself. Deforest taped his hands.

2. Eyewitnesses state that his hands were indeed watered.

3. The tape he used doesn't appear to be black.


It's very odd. I'll post more about his trainers statement. His trainer, who taped his hands, never said that Dempsey used the black bicycle tape. He said he used a certain type of adhesive, and it was said that it was similar to bicycle tape. Do you think this could be an admission that he did use the black bicycle tape at some point in his career? We know that he was definitely familiar with this tape as he claims in his book that he used it "to make handles for jump ropes."

ROPE-SKIPPING develops stamina, coordination and leg-spring.
At a sports-goods store you can buy a skipping rope (not one of those toy ropes that kids use). Or, you can make a rope by soaking a piece of clothesline overnight in a can of light lubricating oil. Hang up the rope and let it dry out for a day. Then, fold the ends of the rope back and tape them into "handles" with bicycle tape. The skipping rope should be fairly heavy but not too thick. That's why you give it the oil treatment.
http://boxingsandc.blogspot.kr/2012/...pion-jack.html

[The Old LefHook]

I believe Willard's gloves were loaded! Since the iron slug on the ring mat did not come from Dempsey's fist, it must have fallen from Willard's. Dempsey surely suspected this. No wonder he was in such a hurry to finish the giant. One blow from a giant with slugs in his mitts could mean death. Willard did kill one fellow. That proves he was loaded himself. Science, you just can't beat it for straightening things out between us, honey.

[travestyny]

First of all, I don't understand the point of writing all of this here. We've gone through this all already here. What is the point? What I asked for is a debate with 3 neutral judges. If this was merely for you to try to express clearly your feelings regarding this, that's fine. First I want to point out why I said your information here is misleading and frankly dishonest. I won't say that you are purposely posting in this manner, but nevertheless that's how I see it. Here is why:

while not breaking the hands may coincide with making the hands hard, there is a difference between the two.

I have no problem with this statement at all, but I just want to point out that you are discussing making the hands harder, and harder hands will do more damage, correct? The difference then is the motivation, to make it clear. You're saying that the motivation may be to support the hands, and a consequence would be harder hands. However, harder hands would mean harder punches, no? And we know that Dempsey didn't need this particular tape on his hands since Carpentier had him remove it, and the tape was prohibited in the Tunney fight. But anyway, my point is you are making it clear that there may have been harder hands involved here.

Deforrest, Dempsey's trainer, who also trained Kid McCoy, later made a claim that Dempsey used bike Tape which somehow becomes a very hard substance allowing a fighter to inflict more damage to the opponent. If this tape was transparent, then maybe nobody would see this tape when part of it was peeled off. Apparently Dempsey's trainer allegedly had the kid (MCcoy) peel off a part of the adhesive and then wrap the hands with this tape affixed right under the observers noses.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "transparent." I'm assuming you mean clear/not easily visible? I don't recall anyone ever saying that this tape was transparent. You'll have to point me to that. I also never read a statement from Deforest saying he had Kid McCoy peel off the tape. The information was taken from a newspaper article in 1910. Mind you....this is 9 years before the Dempsey/Willard fight.

San Francisco Call, Volume 107, Number 117, 27 March 1910 -- TRICKS OF THE TRADE OF PRIZE FIGHTERS



In the clipping of the actual newspaper, again 9 years before the Dempsey/Willard fight, it clearly states that McCoy would argue in the middle of the ring until the tape became hardened, and then peel it off while leaving only strips across his knuckles. It's true that McCoy was trained by Jimmy Deforest, the same trainer that wrapped Jack Dempsey's hands, and that's why Kid McCoy was brought up. But again, nowhere did it say anything about tape being transparent. What the article does say is that the tape hardened after time, and it lists it as a trick that a prizefighter would use to inflict more damage on an opponent. Let's keep that in mind. Why would this article 9 years before the Dempsey/Willard fight lie about this technique???

The point here is there is a natural explanation for why Dempsey beat up Willard. Combine this with the account given with eyewitnesses claiming that nothing was in the wraps, and that plaster of paris does not hold, and we do not need any substances to explain Dempsey's performance.

This is misleading. No one is arguing that McCoy and Dempsey weren't hard punchers. By all accounts they were. Why would them being hard punches then mean that having hardened wraps wouldn't make their punches even more effective. Harder wraps would allow them to do more damage than they would normally do. That's just common sense. And you here are going with eyewitnesses which I believe you seemed weary of elsewhere here, which I don't mind. All we can go by is eye witnesses, right? There were eyewitnesses that stated Dempsey used a tape on his hands. It was not removed, as it was in the case of vs. Carpentier, and it was not prohibited, as it was in the case of vs. Tunney. Not one person has come out and said that Dempsey did not use tape, except for our very own GhostofDempsey, and he is clearly wrong about that. Dempsey himself said he used a tape in this fight. So nothing here disproves using some kind of hardened tape.

Lets start with the second part...how accurate is any eyewitness testimony?

The claim some make is that there was a tape used on Dempsey's hands. This tape is described in a manner that no known substance has ever been described: It is a tape that can be virtually unseen on the knuckles, and will harden to such a degree that through a glove and wraps it will cause great destruction to an individual.

This is misleading! No one has ever said that this tape was virtually unseen. I don't know where you are getting that from. And no, it is not described in a manner that no known substance has ever been described. Refer to the newspaper clipping from 1910 that I posted above.

Not one witness has produced such a tape. There does not appear to be a tape that can harden into a stone like strand on the knuckles that ever existed. And hat would this tape react with? sweat? Water? If sweat hardened it, wouldn't water in the atmosphere?

This is misleading. Again, refer to the article 9 years before this fight took place. There was clear commentary on such a tape existing. And again, Deforest never described it as bicycle tape explicitly. And we have no idea where he got the tape from. We have other, various instances of people saying that boxers have used tape to inflict excessive damage, whether it be from the amount of tape used or the type of tape used.

Willard talked about boxers using tape to make their hands unnaturally hard BEFORE facing Dempsey.

Willard said in newswire article just days before his butchering in Toledo. “Some fellows have wound adhesive tape so thickly that the fist felt like iron through the glove."

Gunboat Smith talked about loading his gloves with tape.

“So in the tenth round I hit him with one of my right hands, but it was on the ear. Tore his ear right off. That hushed him up for the rest of the fight. The blood was running down, and oh God, I, of course, had my gloves ‘loaded.’ I had insulation tape laid across my hands.”

Kid McCoy was sometimes said to use something known as friction tape. There is a lot of evidence that boxers did indeed use tape to give themselves an advantage. The information provided above is from actual fighters who experienced this. There is no reason to doubt their testimony.

So we are told that because Dempsey's trainer, Deforrest, and other witnesses describe this tape that it must have existed? If the tape is a physical impossibility, might Dempsey's trainer have had another motivation to describe a tape that he used with his fighters?

You're operating on the supposition that the tape was physically impossible. Yet again, an article in 1910 speaks specifically about it.

I don't like to speculate, but eyewitness accounts are often not reliable because of our perception, our motivations, and the failure of the memory to recall events objectively. Perhaps the trainer found a very strong tape with which to wrap his fighters hands in and exxagerated, perhaps he took the tape and sheathed it with some other adhesive... The point here is the physical impossibility of taking a thin tape, and making into what would have to be, virtual brass knuckles. Remember this "tape" would have to function through wraps and a glove.

This is misleading! If the tape was likened to bicycle tape, we know that bicycle tape at that time was NOT described as a thin tape. It was described as a very heavy tape.

"Turn your head, or let the other guy turn his, and knuckles were wrapped in heavy black bicycle tape or the thick lead foil in which bulk tea was packaged. The net result was much like hitting a man with a leather-padded mallet.”

Second, you claim that it would have to go through wraps and glove. That is not true. The tape would have been OVER the gauze. This is why McCoy could take it off and not have to rewrap his hands. Dempsey himself explained the process:

"I put gauze on my hands, then put black tape over the gauze"

Clearly the tape would go over the gauze and then would only have to go through the glove. And again, we know from the testimony given above that the tape could be felt by boxers, so I don't know why you would expect us to believe you that this would not be felt through the glove when boxers themselves have testified that you can feel hardened tape through the glove.

Common sense should tell us that it is impossible for any substance to function in the capacity of this so called "magic tape."

What I found to be dishonest in your post here is continuously referring to this tape as "magic tape." It's like you are trying to sway people with this title. Did the tape harden due to being watered. From what was said, it seems that over time it simply hardens due to heat (and it was over 100 degrees during the Willard fight). However, an eye witness does say that Dempsey's hands were indeed watered. Dempsey denied this, yet there seemed to be so much wrong with Dempsey's statement about what happened, as I posted to another poster above.

1. Dempsey claimed that he wrapped his own hands.
2. Dempsey claimed that he used a black tape.
3. Dempsey claimed that his hands were not watered because the tape then would not go on.

When reviewing these, we find that all three statements appear to be false.

1. Eyewitnesses state, and it seems accepted today, that Deforest was the only man that taped his hands.
2. The tape does not appear to be black in any photo that I could find or in the video.
3. Eyewitnesses state that his hands indeed were watered.

Here is what an eyewitness said:

From Nat Fleischer, founder of Ring Magazine:

I was at the fight. I saw Jimmy Deforest, Dempsey’s trainer tape Jack’s hands. I watched every move of the men in Jack’s quarters.

I watched the proceedings and the only person who had anything to do with the taping of Jacks’ hands was Deforest.

...he did not apply any foreign substance to them, which I can verify since I watched the taping.

It was the 4th of July, it was very hot and he did pour some water on his hands when Jack complained of the heat and that hardened them, but that was all that was done.
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/dempsey_gloves.html

The point is, why are you referring to this as "magic tape." It seems to be just language meant to mislead, especially when this was already referred to as far back as 1910.

Regarding corraberation of Deforrest's account: When we combine the unreliability of the men involved...virually all men in Dempsey's camp had motivations to say and do certain things, and none were trustworthy... There was not one objective witness to describe where this tape could be procured, how it was administered, etc. Lets also remember that in the past Dempsey's camp had cooked up other tales, including that he had objects in his glove (proved to be false), etc.

This is misleading! You are grouping Deforest in with Kearns. There were clear differences between the two.

1. Kearns was a man at odds with Dempsey and his statement came many years later.

2. Deforest was never at odds with Dempsey, as far as I could find. His statement about Dempsey using this tape was made directly to one of the most revered boxing writers of the time in an interview LESS THAN A YEAR AFTER THE FIGHT AND WHILE HE WAS STILL WORKING WITH DEMPSEY. HE CONTINUED TO TRAIN DEMPSEY FOR HIS NEXT FIGHTS.

Again, here is Deforests's statement:

“When I handled Kid McCoy, I used to bandage his hands with a certain type of adhesive tape,” DeForest told Vila. “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.”
https://www.nytimes.com/1964/02/09/s...the-times.html

Again, he never said it was specifically bicycle tape. He said a certain type of adhesive tape. You claim that his reasoning for saying this might be to "big up" his methods. Well maybe it was! He had a way of making guys punches even more effective than they normally would be. So...ok...? By the way, this article, which again was from less than a year after the fight and while he was still working with Dempsey, is not the only place where this statement was given. Eyewitnesses also claim that he said this to them.

Again, from Nat Fleischer:

Deforest became riled when the loaded gloves stories began to appear. I recall a press conference he had with several reporters, including myself, at which he angrily remarked:

"I regard the stories I put plaster of Paris on Jack's bandages as plain libel. I'm tired of hearing people talk about such nonsense. It's pure trash. These rumors affect my reputations for honesty and fair dealing. I did not apply any foreign substance to them. I used a hard adhesive tape. This certainly was not irregular. It was not against the rules. It was the same kind of tape I always used when I bandaged Kid McCoy's hands."

Again, admitting that what he used was a hard adhesive tape. We already know that this was not against the rules, so no one is arguing about the legality of this. That is why he can so easily be honest about what he did. Did he admit that they would do unusual punishment? YES! Did he state his belief that this was the reason Willard's face was cut up? YES! Would such tape provide an advantage for Dempsey. CLEARLY! To attack Jimmy DeForest as if he were the same as Kearns is simply unfair.

here we will apply Ockham's Razor: When we are looking at an explanation, usually the simple explanation is the correct explanation. For example, Dempsey went on a rampage and was able, as a fantastic puncher, to beat Willard from pillar to post. Dempsey was known to have these abilities, it is not like Paulie Malignogi suddenly started KO' ing his opponents.

Never stated that Dempsey wouldn't have kicked his ass without this tape, but it clearly gave an advantage. Do I personally believe Dempsey still would have won? Absolutely. Do I believe he would have done as much damage? Nah. I don't. Sorry if that hurts some people's feelings. Maybe he would have still stopped Williard. I'm not saying he wouldn't have. I believe he would have. But I do believe the wraps provided something more.

Lets say we do go by eyewitness accounts here: Despite their unreliability, despite the fact that no such substance exists as the magic tape...bike tape was designed to remain soft, not harden,

Misleading.
So eyewitnesses are back to being unreliable? You need to remain consistent.

Again, it was referred to as something like bicycle tape.

And again, there are people who said it existed and they weren't even talking about this fight.

if we go by cox's article, there were credible witnesses who stated Dempsey's hands were clean when the wraps came off, no magic tapes, etc. So there are witnesses that contradict the witnesses claiming that there was a magical substance...we will get into Dempsey's character later, because this is also important.

MISLEADING AND DISHONEST! Cox's article never once discusses this tape theory! Not once and you know that! The only time the word tape comes up is when it quotes Fleischer as saying he witnessed DeForest taping Dempsey's hands. Stating that his hands were clean when the wraps came off was referring specifically to the plaster story. Come on. You are being flat out dishonest here.

The article talks about plaster. The article talks about an iron spike. NEVER DOES THE ARTICLE TALK ABOUT LOADED GLOVES WITH TAPE!!!

Why would Dempsey's trainer say there was a magical tape on Dempsey and McCoy's hands? I feel this is the only real issue that can be debated here frankly. I don't know! Maybe he was protecting Dempsey being accused of a greater problem (having a hard substance in the glove) and thought the tape story would be legit...

Say what???? He was indeed protecting Dempsey, but from the allegations of something that would clearly be seen as illegal. Again, the tape wasn't illegal. It was "a trick of the trade" and it was "advantageous" and it was "sneaky" and all of that other shlt that you could say about doing such a thing at a time when there were very, very lax rules, but this contention of yours makes ZERO SENSE. He thought it would be legit? What does that even mean???

Maybe he thought the tape acted differently than it did... Who knows? Does it really matter? If I wanted to prove such a story I would have the tape with me and wrap a hand with it.

You fail to realize there was no reason to re-enact this as it wasn't deemed illegal. We know from the quotations above that boxers loaded their gloves with tape. It's not a hard concept to understand and the evidence is out there.

2) When it is alleged Willard was damaged by a substance it is important to understand how we would have to determine this fact. We would in fact need two Willards subject to the same beating, with one dempsey wearing the substance in question, the other willard fighting dempsey with no substance in the glove. Otherwise how can anybody say, JUST from the condition of Willard after the fight, that he was hit by a doctored glove? It would be different if we were looking for evidence of cement, or brass knuckles because we could perhaps, see examples of that on Willard: But how do we determine the damage caused, by a substance that we do not even know if it exists? that is supposed to cut up the opponent?

This is very simple. His hands would be made harder. Harder hands would do more damage. I still don't understand what's so hard to figure out here. I understand your reasoning here, so let me ask you about "likelihood." If a boxer has harder wraps, he will inflict more damage. Doesn't that seem likely? I would say VERY likely. How about you?

Could the tape be so abrasive that it cuts through the gloves? if so were dempsey's gloves ripped open from the inside? We know Dempsey's hands were checked after the fight for objects by reliable eye witnesses. We need to know HOW something can be done before determining if it can be done... Again What Aristotle called "Horse sense" we are looking for a thin sheath that is strong as banded steel and can cut through a glove and wraps, and remain virtually undetectable.

This is misleading. Quotations state that boxers did this all the time. This guy believes it to be a fact that Dempsey had "loaded gloves," but the point is about the practice.

The first is the fact that Dempsey did wear “loaded gloves.” Many fighters during his time, when regulation barely existed, got away with this practice. As Al Spink pointed out in The Atlanta Constitution only months after Dempsey annihilated Willard: “As a matter of fact, there is hardly a pugilist in the country whose hands are not more or less bunged up….So bandaging knuckles has become an art among the boxers, and the trickiest glove men are adepts in putting on the wraps so as to make the glove as hard as the old Roman cestus, with which the ancient gladiators often killed each other.”
https://thecruelestsport.com/2015/06...willard-fight/

I had to look up what "cestus" was.

A cestus or caestus is an ancient battle glove, sometimes used in pankration. They were worn like today's boxing gloves, but were made with leather strips and sometimes filled with iron plates or fitted with blades or spikes, and used as weapons.

lol. I will accept your charge of hyperbole, but the sentiment is clear. You could bandage hands legally in a way to make them very hard if you were skilled in the tricks of the trade at this time.

Again, that quotation comes only months after the fight according to that article. This practice wasn't uncommon. I don't know why you either are pretending that it was, or pretending that it made no difference at all. It clearly did. At least to most people around the sport at that time.

3) Historicallly in Dempsey's time, fighters often used preparations on the hands. The major focus was on making the hands strong and unbreakable. Breaking a hand was a sure way to lose a fight after all....Furthermore, trainers were older and wiser than the fighters and it is perfectly conceviable that things were applied to the hands of Dempsey he was unaware of. But, Dempsey would know about the application of a tape on the knuckles, so we would have to assume Dempsey would be aware of such a treatment, lets hold on to that for now.

Sure. Why would he be unaware of this tape?

It is tempting to speculate that, for example, when Carpentiere asked to check Dempsey's wraps, that he was looking for a specific item, nd indeed, a rumor might have made him look for a magical tape of one sort or another, but if a fighter simply wants to make sure in general that a fighter is clean, they can ask for a rewrap. It is not a strange request for the times...thats the point here.

Lol. Come on, bro. Really? I don't doubt that he could have been looking for other items at all, but it's the way you present this that is laughable. It's like you're saying that the only reason he asked the tape to be removed was for this purpose. Then why wouldn't he allow the tape to be placed back on? And why was bicycle tape PROHIBITED for the Tunney fight?

There is a reason for that.

Bicycle tape was prohibited, forcing Dempsey to fight with far less bandaging than was his custom.

https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=...20tape&f=false

Clearly commissions were catching onto something, don't you think?

I just know the laws of physics as they apply to solids and the laws of evidence: Dempsey was never found with a strange tape that is soft and then becomes so hard that it allows for punching and cutting extra hard. there is no record of such a substance existing that I am aware of, and Sears would have the most extensive hardware collection of adhesives, bicycle tubing and everything in between. There are tapes that stay soft BTW, there are adhesives that harden, virtually all need time, dri air, or a flame.

Caught with? lol. Dude, no one was looking for this tape. No one. Taping your hand was not illegal. That's the point. That boxers have used tape to "load" there gloves at this time is not a secret. The commissions were lax and it wasn't considered illegal until later. This isn't hard to understand. And again, I don't know why you keep bringing up Sears bicycle tape. I asked you to provide the link and show some sort of proof that this was the tape being referred to. I don't imagine that you can do the latter part of that since DeForest never said expressly that this was bicycle tape. It's odd that I'm sure he knew exactly what bicycle tape was, but never called this exactly that. It was referred to as "something like bicycle tape."

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.
https://www.paulbeston.com/blog/the-...f-jack-dempsey

The only mention I could find of someone claiming that this was explicitly bicycle tape was in a book about Tex Rickard:

When the Marines finally departed there was another delay while a fresh canvas was laid in the ring. Willard had heard that the canvas from his opponent's training-camp ring was being used and demanded at the last moment that another be substituted. While this was being done, his handlers were watching Dempsey wind yards of heavy bicycle tape around and around his fists, without protesting.
https://archive.org/stream/magnifice...41mbp_djvu.txt

Funny that he felt the need to add "without protesting" which seems to hint that some may question why there was no protesting. Probably because it is clear that this could cause a concern about fairness, don't you think?

Historically fighters used a lot of stuff on their hands. Trainers had their own special recipes for their fighters. No doubt that DeForrest may have been hyperbolizing his wrapping technique when claiming how a magical, unseen tape could produce such force!

Again, you are deciding to interpret his statement how you want. How about accepting that he can speak for himself and he said expressly what he did. We don't really need you to decide what he really meant. He admit to it and that should have been the end of it since he was the one directly who wrapped the hands, it was NEVER debunked, and there is no reason to lie about it. None.

And you're still lying about this whole "unseen" thing. No idea where you got that from.

Lets talk Kid Mccoy. He was indeed a scoundrel. Any fighter in those days had to slither with the snakes but for Mccoy it was probably not such a hard adjustment to make. We have to be careful not to tie Dempsey into Mccoy. They were very different sorts.

Agreed. But they both had the same trainer...who claims they used similar wraps. And the trainer said explicitly that the wraps did "unusual punishment." I thought you said in a post above that trainers who are directly involved in these things can give valuable insight, but you are ready to distrust DeForest.

And for the record, Deforest was the first one to bring McCoy into this matter. McCoy's name was dropped in the quotation about what was done with Dempsey's wraps on the night of the Willard fight.

Why would Kearns, in this tall tale frame Dempsey as a dupe when he wanted to impugne Dempsey? Because he knew nobody would believe that Dempsey would go along with a metal horseshoe in the gloves type situation.

Would Dempsey go along with something to give him an advantage that was not illegal? This is another part that seems dishonest to me. These situations are clearly not symmetrical.

So one would have to believe that Dempsey was aware of this magic tape on his hands.

lol. Magic tape. It was being used 9 years before this fight at least. Dempsey already copped to using some sort of a black tape in the past. Bicycle tape was often referred to as being black. What do you think that means? Perhaps a different kind of black tape?

No one is saying he wasn't aware of this tape. He clearly would have been aware of whatever tape it was and it clearly wouldn't have bothered him since it wasn't considered illegal.

Or did his trainer just trick him? that defies common sense. This is very important: If DeForrest was telling a fact about a magic tape that helped him wrap his fighters hands, what did Dempsey say about it? If Deforrest was coming clean to help his fighter dispel rumors that kearns came out with, why wouldn't Dempsey say "yeah we used a tape that helped, what of it?" What did Dempsey say about this tape?

The only thing Dempsey said about the handwraps was:

1. That he taped his hands himself.
2. That his hands weren't watered.
3. That he used a black tape.


All three seem to be false to me. Don't know if he was old and senile or confused with another fight. In any event, Deforest wrapped his hands and Dempsey refuted Kearns statement. Deforest's statement came less than a year after the fight. Dempsey had NEVER denied the use of such a tape. Why would he. Again, it was sneaky, but it wasn't illegal.

So this is my position as transparent as I can make it:

1) I do not know what wrappings were used on Dempsey's hands. I just know that common sense, Ockham's Razor, Science, and competing eye witness testimony, tell me that a substance which does not seem to exist, could not materially affect an event, impossibly through wraps and gloves.

People who lived at this time and were boxers or around the boxing game disagree with you.

2) To state that because of actions taken by Kid McCoy, allegedlly to hide this magic tape, and his trainer later saying this magic tape exists and materially affected the outcome of the Willard fight, needs a much higher burden of truth when common sense seems to indicate otherwise.

Seems that there are quite a bit of us that lack common sense, including pultizer prize winners, boxing historians, boxers, trainers, noteworthy reporters at the time of this fight. That's a very pompous outlook, I think.

3) There is a context to this: there are in fact competing eyewitness accounts (see source material in response), there is a history of claims being fabricated against Dempsey by his camp, like Kearns for example... all of which have been demonstrated to be false when brought to the light. Therefore when we strain the credability by suggesting an alternative that is even more outlandish, we can see a motivation to do so.

THIS IS MISLEADING. You keep desperately trying to group Kearns with DeForest. Kearns was debunked. Deforest never was. Never. Kearns had motive. Deforest simply didn't.

I do not accept the existence of a magical tape that can act with such tensil strength and purpose when there is no record of any such tape ever existing...keep in mind that the tape was described as "Bike Tape" which does the exact opposite of what this bike tape allegedly does: It stays soft like tire rubber.

Misleading!!! There is a record of it existing. I pointed you to it. You are pointing us to some tape you found on a sears catalogue without knowing if that is exactly what is being referred to, but you keep bringing it up as if that was definitively what was used. That's also dishonest.

I do not know what extraordinary damage is when discussing two fighters who were devistating hitters... What is ordinary damage for Mccoy and Dempsey? I question whether any trainer, or other boxing pundit can state that a physical substance simply put on the knuckles caused extra damage, with certainty. When I say this I am not saying that something on the knuckles does not/can't cause damage, I am saying we cannot measure and know exactly what that damage necessarily is, with the same certainty we can measure a building and know the square footage. I even question whether these substances protected the hands to any degree... or whether they were simply hopeful thinking.

So again, what do you think the likelihood is of harder hands causing a harder punch or a punch that might rip skin. Can we agree that this would be likely?

Are there exceptions to this? Well...we certainly know if a piece of hard cement is put in the gloves more damage will occur. We have understanding that hard objects with mass and density cause force. We did not need to know the extent of Miguel Cotto's injuries to know what happened in that fight with Margarito's gloves.

Strange that you use Cotto as an example. Shouldn't you have gone with Billy Collins? Was Margarito found to definitively use cement in the Cotto fight? The stance that you repeatedly seemed to take is that you wouldn't believe nearly anything unless you were there. You certainly seem to not want to accept testimony from those involved. Why would you believe Margarito had cement in his hands for the Cotto fight when there is less proof of that than there is that Dempsey used hardened wraps for the Willard fight, in my humble opinion. I'm not saying what I believe to be the case. I'm talking about evidence. That seems severely lacking for the Cotto case.

I base this conclusion on studying the physiology of punching, which demonstrates why hitting was not always about punching the hardest, rather about accuracy.

But you also just showed that you recognized that a harder wrap would cause more damage, as you said you believe that in the Cotto case. You don't believe hardened tape would cause more damage?

When I say I do not know I mean it...There might well be some magical trick that Dempsey's trainer concocted. But the proof of that is lacking.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

Again, there is more proof of that than there is that Margarito used plaster for Cotto. Why the difference? One the one side, you have someone directly involved in wrapping Dempsey's hands admitting what happened. Never any admittance by Margarito or his trainer involving the Cotto fight. I'm curious about which scenario has more evidence in your opinion and why.