Jess Willard v Jack Dempsey

Things you learn from watching this fight are:

A fighter back then didnt have to be able to defend himself after a knockdown to continue. Just being half stood up, with both gloves still on the canvas, completely out of it and looking semi-concussed was deemed defensible enough to be smashed in the back of the head

Also, hanging on to the ropes with both arms was classed as fine and even though you are getting your ribs smashed in, only hitting the canvas was going to stop any futher punishment

You also learn that it didnt matter back then how much blood was pouring from your face or the fact that you had gone down 7 times there was no way the referee was going to stop it

Man that fight is painfull to watch

Was it Dempseys finest performance by the way?


Regards

Steffan

It was Dempsey's finest performance considering he was loaded.

And I don't mean financially.

I think its definately one of the most poignant examples of the effect the neutral corner rule has certainly, and while theres been a few criticisms of early stoppages recently it does show here that especially with the no neutral corner rule for knockdowns that serious punishment can be administered.

I would say most view this as the quintessential Dempsey fight showcasing what he was all about but for me its not neccessarily his best win given the nature of Willards condition and overall ability at the time.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:And I don't mean financially.

Neither were his gloves.

Just a silly conspiracy theory which emerged years after the fight and which has been thoroughly discredited since.

Wouldn't call it Dempsey's finest performance, nor his best win, as the lumbering Willard was no great shakes to begin with other than having decent durability and a big right hand, and had been terribly inactive as champion. Neutral corner rule or no, Dempsey was always going to administer an absolute hammering on him that day.

Would say, though, that it's Dempsey's calling card, so to speak. As Manos said, it demonstrated everything we've come to associate with Dempsey; ferocity, power, the 'Dempsey roll' and his magnetic nature, which went on to personify the roaring twenties.

Dempsey's best performance was surely when he settled down to his boxing and soundly outscored Gibbons. Firpo, I'd care to wager, was a much more dangerous Heavyweight in 1923 than Willard had been in 1919, and I'd perhaps nominate that as his best win.

I saw after I had written this that you removed your post regarding Dempsey's gloves, ONETWO. Nevertheless, I wrote this, so I might as well drop it onto the thread.

The ' loaded gloves ' conspiracies - there were actually two of them - have been totally disproven.

To start with, bandages and gloves were applied in the ring. Willard's people witnessed the bandaging of Dempsey's hands.

No Plaster of Paris, then.

Secondly, Willard's injuries were exaggerated. He drove home the same day as the fight, ( or maybe the following morning, can't remember, ) and gave an interview to a Kansas newspaper the following day. The initial injuries had been reported by a person who was not a doctor.

No broken jaw, then.

The mysterious ' bolt ' object was, in the opinion of most people, a cigar. Whatever it was, it could not have been an iron spike which had been held by Dempsey. How could Dempsey have held it when his gloves were often open, holding the ring ropes or shoving Willard off him with both hands square in Willard's chest? How could it have been inside his glove when the fight went three rounds and the mysterious object was found on the canvas at the end of the first?

Why did Willard wait until the Kearns story broke, years after the fight, if, as he claimed, he had picked up the ' bolt ' from the canvas on the day of the fight?

Utter nonsense, but don't take my word for it :

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

Check out the newspapers of the day for confirmation about Willard's having driven home, the interview, etc., etc.

Good article that one you posted fair do. Havnt had chance to read it all yet but it looks at the case with a great deal of depth

You are fighting a losing battle HumanWindmill.. .I will leave it at that..I agree but hey lets stay in that minority...

Wise words I reckon, skidd.

Some folks just love a conspiracy theory. Almost every time that the heavyweight title changed hands between Sullivan and Ezzard Charles there was some conspiracy theory attached, the majority of which were abject nonsense.

Think you're being generous in suggesting it stopped with Charles, Windy!

Liston quit on his stool because the Nation of Islam would murder him if he won, Angelo Dundee loosened the ropes in Zaire which cost Foreman the crown against Ali, Tyson was screwed over because of a long count against Douglas and to top it all off, Wladimir was drugged against Brewster, don't you know!

I didn't mean to imply that it stopped there, Chris.

My point is that there was relative stability, for a while, between Charles' accession to the throne and Patterson's until he overtly avoided Liston.

Prior to that, it was nearly every single time that the title changed hands.

My point is that there was relative stability, for a while, between Charles' accession to the throne and Patterson's until he overtly avoided Liston.

Are you trying to tell me that Walcott didn't take a dive against Marciano, Windy? It was a nothing punch!!!

superflyweight wrote:

My point is that there was relative stability, for a while, between Charles' accession to the throne and Patterson's until he overtly avoided Liston.

Are you trying to tell me that Walcott didn't take a dive against Marciano, Windy? It was a nothing punch!!!

Haha!

The gospel according to azania, superfly.

Discredited, much like onetwo's contributions...

(someone has to do it whilst Truss is away)