Symbolic World Heavyweight Championship Belt

[danundisputed]

Hi Boxingfans!

I'm searching for a photo of the "Symbolic World Heavyweight Championship Belt".
I've seen it on a boxing documentary called Legendary Champions. A framed picture of that belt was shown inside the ring.
If anybody got that photo please be so kind and email it to:

[email protected]

Regards

Daniel Bräuer

[Cap]

I think you may be talking about the belt displayed in the ring just prior to the Dempsey-Willard mugging. Funny how Dempsey scored all those early knock-outs away from the spotlight of the press in his early tramp days, but not so much later on when all eyes were on him and Kearns. You got to figure a hobo fighter like Dempsey who likely often had to fight for his life in those mining and lumber camps against guys maybe twice his size trying to kick his face in probably thought nothing of evening the odds with a little something in his fist or glove....

[HomicideHenry]

I think you may be talking about the belt displayed in the ring just prior to the Dempsey-Willard mugging. Funny how Dempsey scored all those early knock-outs away from the spotlight of the press in his early tramp days, but not so much later on when all eyes were on him and Kearns. You got to figure a hobo fighter like Dempsey who likely often had to fight for his life in those mining and lumber camps against guys maybe twice his size trying to kick his face in probably thought nothing of evening the odds with a little something in his fist or glove....

You actually believe that Dempsey cheated against Willard?

[Cap]

It remains a possibility and something we will never really know the answer to now. Why did the more fragile Carpentier last longer than the giant Willard who had never been off his feet? Why was Dempsey in his absolute prime unable to inflict any serious damage on Tommy Gibbons over 15 rounds yet demolished big Fred Fulton in near record time? Dempsey was no gent from Harvard or Yale. He was called the Manassa Mauler for a reason. Where many fighters of the era were content to go the distance to fight another day, Dempsey's philosophy was "kill or be killed".

[HomicideHenry]

It remains a possibility and something we will never really know the answer to now. Why did the more fragile Carpentier last longer than the giant Willard who had never been off his feet? Why was Dempsey in his absolute prime unable to inflict any serious damage on Tommy Gibbons over 15 rounds yet demolished big Fred Fulton in near record time? Dempsey was no gent from Harvard or Yale. He was called the Manassa Mauler for a reason. Where many fighters of the era were content to go the distance to fight another day, Dempsey's philosophy was "kill or be killed".

I'd argue it's because Gibbons and Carpentier, Meehan and others--- were simply faster, more elusive and skilled, than the larger, stronger, slower, more wide open to counters Willard, Morris, Fulton, and Firpo. There are two hypothesises on the whole "Dempsey Fix" in Toledo... one is that an iron bar was in Dempsey's hand/glove... the other is that Dempsey had plaster of paris on his wraps.

Problem with those theories... we have pictures and film... before the fight began, Dempsey was in the ring with no gloves on... his wraps were checked before the gloves were put on while he was in the ring. And there is pictures of Jack in the corner, while these wraps were being inspected. No evidence (visually anyways) of doctored wraps. But the fact that there was no controversy beforehand, and the fight went on as planned with no hesitation... is an indicator that the wraps weren't doctored.

That leaves the "iron bar" hypothesis... and on film and in pictures, there does appear to be a cylindrical object on the ring floor after Dempsey won the contest, and soon 'disappears' from view... people say that Dempsey dropped the bar, and someone at ringside (or Kearns) picked it up off the canvas. Problem with this hypothesis is that if the iron bar account was even remotely true--- the bar would of dropped several times during the round(s) because Dempsey at times was 'open handed' or in clinches holding Willard's arms. Also, the alleged iron bar on the film is rather large, it would have stuck out on either side of Dempsey's gloved fist. This would of been visible on film, and certainly Willard and the referee would of seen this.

So there goes both hypothesises. Maybe the most logical answer for Willard's defeat, is the fact he was inactive for almost three years--- more inclined to rake in thousands of dollars joining a circus troupe during WW1 and avoiding military service than defending the championship. The fact that he wasn't a skilled fighter anyways--- just a big, strong, tough man--- combined with such rust and inactivity. Well, there lies your answer.

Though I will say, it always befuddled me as to why Dempsey could drop Willard in the first round... but couldn't in the second and third rounds... I guess the only explaination I can give or assume, is that Dempsey threw everything he possibly had in that first round, and was burned out. That and the fact in the subsequent rounds, Willard didn't try to press any issues, and I suppose Dempsey also felt if Willard wasn't going to, then why should he.

[BoxBuzz]

Is it this belt?

[HomicideHenry]

I guess the only way to know would be to look at pictures of each heavyweight champion's belt...

For a long, long time in boxing there wasn't "belts"... but rather championship rings. Wasn't until Sullivan did the concept of having belts truly take off and become representative of the sport. Sullivan's belt is lost to history forever, but a replication of the belt is in the Smithsonian and people can buy replicas of the belt.



HOWEVER... one must consider that the first organisation to really make belts and distribute them to "winners" of contests was from the National Police Gazette... the featured belt below is how a typical Gazette belt looked like... maybe this is the "Symbolic" belt?



http://www.sportsantiques.com/05Natedit ... oxBelt.jpg

^Another Gazette belt to be viewed and was woven from silk.

Mind you, before Sullivan (also) most 'belts' won usually were the opposing man's colors that he wore around his waist. So alot of the early belts ever won, were in fact made of silk or cloth. As a fast fact, Jem Mace's colors are in the ownership of famed bare knuckle fighter Bartley Gorman's family, as the colors were bought in the 1990's from a bar owner whose family had the colors. So the fact that the Gazette originally had silk woven belts, stems from the tradition of taking ownership of an opponents colors upon victory.

Mace did win an actual belt http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/Image ... 0/110530/1 for the middleweight championship--- but what his heavyweight belt actually looked like is another matter. http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/451 ... 647E5CF660 And it seems that boxing designs were always changing. So what the very first championship belt ever looked like is anyone's guess http://www.merseyboxers.org.uk/admin/up ... d25cb7.jpg because at least in Mace's career he had several belts of varying shapes, and materials. http://images1.bonhams.com/image?src=Im ... osizefit=1

Seems like for every champion there was, a belt was personalized in design. Tommy Burns had a very beautifully designed belt. http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/48537.gif But overall the design remains the same in the central piece: two men inside a ring. Jack Johnson's belt was different, as it appeared to look like eagle wings as the central piece.http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/images/ ... -large.jpg And Jim Jeffries was more in line with the old Gazette style. http://www.boxing.com/images/sized/imag ... 30x317.jpg

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc70 ... 1268262324 Various champions had belts, even "White Hope" champions like Luther McCarty. And heavyweight champion Jack Dempsey's belt was more in line with the RING model... https://ordinarypeoplenyc.files.wordpre ... y-belt.jpg and it can be said that from THAT time on the belts have remained the same by and large, though in some instances the belts have been designed to suit the fighter (Schmeling's belt was different, as was Max Bear's).

[Cap]

It remains a possibility and something we will never really know the answer to now. Why did the more fragile Carpentier last longer than the giant Willard who had never been off his feet? Why was Dempsey in his absolute prime unable to inflict any serious damage on Tommy Gibbons over 15 rounds yet demolished big Fred Fulton in near record time? Dempsey was no gent from Harvard or Yale. He was called the Manassa Mauler for a reason. Where many fighters of the era were content to go the distance to fight another day, Dempsey's philosophy was "kill or be killed".

I'd argue it's because Gibbons and Carpentier, Meehan and others--- were simply faster, more elusive and skilled, than the larger, stronger, slower, more wide open to counters Willard, Morris, Fulton, and Firpo. There are two hypothesises on the whole "Dempsey Fix" in Toledo... one is that an iron bar was in Dempsey's hand/glove... the other is that Dempsey had plaster of paris on his wraps.

Problem with those theories... we have pictures and film... before the fight began, Dempsey was in the ring with no gloves on... his wraps were checked before the gloves were put on while he was in the ring. And there is pictures of Jack in the corner, while these wraps were being inspected. No evidence (visually anyways) of doctored wraps. But the fact that there was no controversy beforehand, and the fight went on as planned with no hesitation... is an indicator that the wraps weren't doctored.

That leaves the "iron bar" hypothesis... and on film and in pictures, there does appear to be a cylindrical object on the ring floor after Dempsey won the contest, and soon 'disappears' from view... people say that Dempsey dropped the bar, and someone at ringside (or Kearns) picked it up off the canvas. Problem with this hypothesis is that if the iron bar account was even remotely true--- the bar would of dropped several times during the round(s) because Dempsey at times was 'open handed' or in clinches holding Willard's arms. Also, the alleged iron bar on the film is rather large, it would have stuck out on either side of Dempsey's gloved fist. This would of been visible on film, and certainly Willard and the referee would of seen this.

So there goes both hypothesises. Maybe the most logical answer for Willard's defeat, is the fact he was inactive for almost three years--- more inclined to rake in thousands of dollars joining a circus troupe during WW1 and avoiding military service than defending the championship. The fact that he wasn't a skilled fighter anyways--- just a big, strong, tough man--- combined with such rust and inactivity. Well, there lies your answer.

Though I will say, it always befuddled me as to why Dempsey could drop Willard in the first round... but couldn't in the second and third rounds... I guess the only explaination I can give or assume, is that Dempsey threw everything he possibly had in that first round, and was burned out. That and the fact in the subsequent rounds, Willard didn't try to press any issues, and I suppose Dempsey also felt if Willard wasn't going to, then why should he.

As I said, with everyone gone, we'll never really know, but Kearns, who was a duplicitous SOB with a huge wager on the line, could easily have slipped something to Dempsey that was removed after the first round....

[HomicideHenry]

As I said, with everyone gone, we'll never really know, but Kearns, who was a duplicitous SOB with a huge wager on the line, could easily have slipped something to Dempsey that was removed after the first round....

While Kearns was no angel, the thesis is not viable. As I said, if one looks at the footage, there is several times during that round in which Dempsey's palms were exposed and wide open--- such a device would of fell out of his hand for all to see during the round, and Dempsey would of been automatically disqualified.

[Cap]

As I said, with everyone gone, we'll never really know, but Kearns, who was a duplicitous SOB with a huge wager on the line, could easily have slipped something to Dempsey that was removed after the first round....

While Kearns was no angel, the thesis is not viable. As I said, if one looks at the footage, there is several times during that round in which Dempsey's palms were exposed and wide open--- such a device would of fell out of his hand for all to see during the round, and Dempsey would of been automatically disqualified.

Go back and watch how Dempsey's left just hangs straight down as though it has a weight in it.... :??

[HomicideHenry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3BTycNuY44

Clearly from the start one can see Dempsey's left hand was 'open' as it hung down to the left. Besides, from the start, there was a clinch, and you can see visibly that his hands were also open.

[man]

i think dempsey is overrated in general, but willard
was just a non moving target that was hit flush time
after time. no man will remain uninjured if a
hw-puncher is allowed to do that to his face.

[HomicideHenry]

i think dempsey is overrated in general, but willard
was just a non moving target that was hit flush time
after time. no man will remain uninjured if a
hw-puncher is allowed to do that to his face.

If one looks at Willard's fights... he generally was that way in every fight... when he fought Johnson, the champion beat him repeatedly into the ropes, etc. he was so easy to hit and stay hit once someone got passed his arms. He was a big, strong (probably the strongest) heavyweight with excellent conditioning--- but his skills were average at best. If I remember correctly, what Willard generally did in the ring was to hold out his long left and throw a right uppercut when someone came in. That was essentially the extent of his skills. In the words of Muhammad Ali, Willard was just a "big freak".