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

[Ray Corso]

The tape in question not only hardened but "shrunk"!
This was a difficult application to apply because of the shrinking factor. If there's one thing a fighter will insist on is a comfortable wrapping of his hands. To add a substance to the wraps to change the wraps purpose (hand protection) you might also need to add a
substance to decrease the discomforts of said wraps. (get it?)



I've been wrapping fighters since 1965 and up until 2012 still was teaching a few different techniques.

ps; I don't think Jack needed any help but then again when he got close to bell time he was a mean SOB.
Loading hands sounds more like his garbage management instead of Dempsey.

Have fun kids no clinching........

Ray

[Anthony342]

I do have a theory:

Cloth electrical tape, as Joe said, was used for making handles, in addition to wrapping electric wires. We used it for taping stick ball bats (broomsticks) because it kept them together. These tapes were generally structurally supportive and would have been like athletic tape which I doubt was invented back then. There was no regulation against these tapes and again my understanding is that they were used to protect the hands as a hold over from the bare knuckles days... just can't be sure of what the tape exactly was. Nobody can really know this lol.

I don't know of a tape that functions like iron, the tapes I am familiar with would have to be wrapped *******ly around the hands to support them. But I would have to know exactly what the trainer was referring to and we will probably never know this information.

Kids in my school used electrical tape too for wiffle ball bats. The bigger kids liked it because it made the ball go farther and a little faster, so a base hit might become a double and a double a homer.

[TonyGe]

Ok I've been reading this thread with interest. The first thing I thought of was doesn't the opponent send someone to check that the hand wraps are legal? I know it was a long time ago but it seems like an obvious precaution.

[GhostofDempsey]

Ok I've been reading this thread with interest. The first thing I thought of was doesn't the opponent send someone to check that the hand wraps are legal? I know it was a long time ago but it seems like an obvious precaution.

Yes I addressed it. Walter Monghsn ad Ike O'Neill from Willard's camp witnessed Dempsey's hands during wrapping.

[TonyGe]

[QUOTE=GhostofDempsey;18532927]Yes I addressed it. Walter Monghsn ad Ike O'Neill from Willard's camp witnessed Dempsey's hands during wrapping.[/QUOTE
Ok looks like Dempsey was legal. I knew about Dempsey but hadn't watched film on him.
I went on YouTube and the guy could punch. His movement was good also.

[travestyny]

Ok I've been reading this thread with interest. The first thing I thought of was doesn't the opponent send someone to check that the hand wraps are legal? I know it was a long time ago but it seems like an obvious precaution.

Here is more interesting things about this.


It was first agreed that the taping would be done inside the ring. Later, Dempsey's manager protested this. They won the protest and then the taping was done in the dressing room instead. Newspaper articles from the time make it clear that it was first agreed that the taping would be done in front of everyone in the ring. It was announced by Tex Rickard, the promoter of the fight.

After the protest, Rickard announced it would be done in the dressing room in front of representatives. Still, there was no word yet about what would be allowed.

This is what I could find:

“The rules of the Boxing Commission in Toledo specified soft bandages. Willard declared that he planned to use plain cotton bandages with a couple of layers of surgical tape to hold the bandages in place. “that’s all I care to use, and I think Dempsey should feel the same way about it. I believe it always looks bad to the spectators to see a boxer come into the ring with his hands looking as hard as a club because protected by some heavy material.”
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=...0brine&f=false

Willard also said this in the newspaper article that revealed that they would have the hands taped in the ring (later overturned)

Willard said that he would insist upon a thin layer of cotton surgical band aces, and only enough tape to hold the bandages in place.

Obviously Willard's demand was denied. You can see a clear difference in how their hands were wrapped. Willards hands were wrapped very minimally. Dempsey's hands were heavily wrapped.

On July 1 the matter was settled. “Jess Willard and Jack Dempsey will go into the ring for the heavyweight championship contest here Friday with bare hands, and all the bandaging and taping will be done in the view of the spectators and seconds of the heavyweight rivals. This announcement was made today by Tex Richard, promoter of the contest.”

Jack Kearns protested against this. The next day tex Rickard reversed his decision and announced that the fighters would tape their hands in their dressing room in the presence of a representative of the rival camp. The change occurred, Doc Kearns said “because of the blazing heat.” Another reason given was that to tape in the ring would create unnecessary delay. Either way, Dempsey entered the ring with hands heavily wrapped in tape and Willard had lost a critical battle to Doc Kearns.”

Doyle noted that the men were supposed to enter the ring bare-handed and have their bandages applied in the ring. But they both came in with bandages on their hands. Dempsey “entered the ring taped well down the wrist almost to the finger tips.” Willard, “to be sure, also entered with bandages on, but they barely ran around his big hands.”

So if the tape was allowed, then there is no reason to believe that anyone would raise a concern about it. The question still remains...what was the nature of this tape? The point is, the man who wrapped the hands said this:

“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.”

The tape was not illegal, which is why it makes no sense to discuss who watched the wrapping. But did Dempsey use tape that caused "unusual punishment." That's the issue. The man who wrapped the hands said yes....less than a year after the fight...and while he was still working with Dempsey...and while he continued to work with Dempsey in his future fights.

We are going to have a debate soon about what reasons this man would have to lie, I assume.


By the way, here is a picture of Willards hands, for anyone who is interested. Compare it to a picture of Dempsey's hands:

For sure, Dempsey was legal. But we aren't debating legality, especially in light of the very lax rules of the commissions at this time. Immediately people who watched this fight said something seemed to be off. There's lots of quotes about even the sound of the punches that were landed.

[Dempsey-Louis]

For example, I asked Dempsey-Louis how likely he believed this story to be on a scale from one to ten, and he stated that coming from his vantage point as a history teacher, it doesn't work that way. I respect his view, though I disagree (and no I'm not saying he's wrong and I'm right. lol. You can see I'm trying not to be mistaken for a bully here. Really walking on eggshells).

[wink] You are right, you're not right, because it isn't done that way.

Do we say there is a 20% chance Napoleon died from syphilis simply because British propaganda claimed he did? No, we say he died of stomach cancer, because . . . he died from stomach cancer (an absolute). We don't give every historical speculation a percentage score of possible correctness. We just call the propaganda, propaganda, and don't give it false credibility by saying it might be correct.

If we did it your way we would have nothing but a sea of speculation. History already has a difficult enough time weeding out the biases, you want to give them all assigned values. [wink]

[travestyny]

[wink] You are right, you're not right, because it isn't done that way.

Do we say there is a 20% chance Napoleon died from syphilis simply because British propaganda claimed he did? No, we say he died of stomach cancer, because . . . he died from stomach cancer (an absolute). We don't give every historical speculation a percentage score of possible correctness. We just call the propaganda, propaganda, and don't give it false credibility by saying it might be correct.

If we did it your way we would have nothing but a sea of speculation. History already has a difficult enough time weeding out the biases, you want to give them all assigned values. [wink]

I'm not sure I agree with you.


You kind of ignored my example. Do you believe OJ did it?

It can't be proven unless he tells us, right? Do you give an opinion or do you simply say, "I don't know."

[Dempsey-Louis]

Wait need to go back and read the OJ part and think on it.

[travestyny]

Wait need to go back and read the OJ part and think on it.

Or how about this example. This is of more historical reference.

Death. ... Although there is some speculation that Tutankhamun was assassinated, the consensus is that his death was accidental. A CT scan taken in 2005 showed that he had suffered a compound left leg fracture shortly before his death, and that the leg had become infected.

We do this all the time, bro. I'm sure there are a number of examples of this that can be brought up.