BoxRec

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

i just watched this fight and i am shocked and appalled at what i see, i know boxing was a different sport in 1919 and lets face it there wasn't many rules.

the parts of the fight that i find most sickening is when willard is getting up off the floor and dempsey charges into him throwing hooks to the back of his head and another time when willard is on the floor holding the ropes and dempsey starts throwing punches to his body even in a street fight most people wouldnt do this. Number 1 rule in a fight is dont hit a man when he is down.

What i would like to know is when did the rules that we know today first start getting introduced?

Dude,sounds like u just became a boxing fan last week.

Brutu wrote:Dude,sounds like u just became a boxing fan last week.

if your gonna just write stupid comments like that then dont bother you xxxxx, i am a recent fan of boxing and i ask these questions to increase my knowledge of boxing. you got a problem with that xxxxxxxx ??

Hey Skillz....take a look at Dempsey's career, he repeated that bit of work on more than one occasion and it got the "powers that be" of boxing's attention. The Tunney fights were critical as the sanctioning bodies came up with a concise statement regarding going to one's corner when your opponent is knocked down. Thus....the long count and Dempsey loses his championship. If Dempsey had scurried right to his corner would he have retained the championship? It's one of the most controversisal moments in boxing.

I'm not sure which of Dempsey's specific performances were the inspiration for the then new rule, someone here I'm sure can tell you that. However I do believe they had a buffet table of choices to choose from. He was not one to wait when someone was down. He certainly had the "killer" instinct. What a finisher he was! And when he was practicing that routine I don't believe it was against the rules.

BoxBuzz wrote:Hey Skillz....take a look at Dempsey's career, he repeated that bit of work on more than one occasion and it got the "powers that be" of boxing's attention. The Tunney fights were critical as the sanctioning bodies came up with a concise statement regarding going to one's corner when your opponent is knocked down. Thus....the long count and Dempsey loses his championship. If Dempsey had scurried right to his corner would he have retained the championship? It's one of the most controversisal moments in boxing.

I'm not sure which of Dempsey's specific performances were the inspiration for the then new rule, someone here I'm sure can tell you that. However I do believe they had a buffet table of choices to choose from. He was not one to wait when someone was down. He certainly had the "killer" instinct. What a finisher he was! And when he was practicing that routine I don't believe it was against the rules.

thank you for that insightful comment, i know it probably wasn't in the rules but im sure there was good sportsmanship even in 1919.

AntonS wrote:Keep your cool guys

sorry just hate it when people talk to me out of the side of there neck

I liked seeing that Video, Dempsey was just following the rules at the time, and actually did seem somewhat respectful of the ref, and never hit Jess when he was completely down. The "go to the corner" rule was simply not part of the game, so why not pounce as fast as you can? Point is to win. I don't see "disgusting" I see practical and effective.

skillz_that_killz wrote:

AntonS wrote:Keep your cool guys

sorry just hate it when people talk to me out of the side of there neck

This forum is never short of Antagonism = I know & you don't.
Simply ignore any of that crap

Cheers
Anton - Editor/Moderator

I'm still trying to figure out the problem is with just becoming a boxing fan last week! LOL

I welcome anyone to this forum new fans or folks like me who have been following boxing since the 50's.

But I understand why you would take it as a slam, The statement was not framed as a straightforward shot by any means.

I also know the feeling of having nothing to say and saying it anyway. Though I seldom go after people with my superfluous statements.

Terry D wrote:Victim of his times etc. Dempsey was just playing those rules. Everyone looks for an edge and he used that rule, or lack thereof, to his advantage for a time. Though it eventually came back to bite him on the bum.

Well he was fast! Why not use his speed to quickly react? However he wasn't quite as fast to embrace the new rules! But during his heyday that's just the way it was.

Brutu wrote:Dude,sounds like u just became a boxing fan last week.

Indeed.

"Number-one rule, don't hit a man while he's down."

How grand of you to second-guess Dempsey &, indeed, the entire period, some ninety years later. What breath-taking ignorance & conceit in the same poisoned breath.

BoxBuzz wrote:I'm still trying to figure out the problem is with just becoming a boxing fan last week! LOL

I welcome anyone to this forum new fans or folks like me who have been following boxing since the 50's.

But I understand why you would take it as a slam, The statement was not framed as a straightforward shot by any means.

I also know the feeling of having nothing to say and saying it anyway. Though I seldom go after people with my superfluous statements.

Well, I do have a problem with someone who admits to being new to something in one breath, & then makes severe & unbending viewpoints about something they have just essentially admitted to not knowing much --- if anything --- about. That post is Current Scene material if ever I saw it --- right down to the failed attempt to distinguish between, 'your' &, 'you're.'

If you're new to something, pay attention & you might learn. Don't come in, second-guess something with total conviction, & act as if you know what's best in hindsight.

Goodnight, if you're saying ya don't cotton much to liberals....I'm with ya!

But the old rules do shock some of the gentler crew.

I see Dempsey just doin' his job. And in the Tunney fight I just see the ref doin' his.

My guess? You and I are on the same page. Set me straight if I got it wrong.

When did this forum start becoming politically correct anyways?

Well let's hope never! I don't find it disgusting, but for someone who's never been exposed to the history I suppose it could be shocking. So I have some patience with folks who just got a dose of reality. We just need to get the smelling salts out, and start explaining to them that they will eventually be just fine! No harm done! LOL

To those of us who are older I say, You're lucky to have your memories of the days of yore!

It gives one context and nullifies the shock of reality!

Love watching that fight. Dempsey moves like a ballerina.

...i've never understood why buzz and so many others think dempsey was such a great finisher. if he landed so many punches in the manner of that fight, how come willard kept getting up, and then came out for two more rounds before he just couldn't come our for a fourth one?

jaclem

I have thought the same thing often to. Dempsey fires his blows
like an all out onslaught. Never really finishes Willard of in a tidy
fashion, or definitive accuracy or power shots.

I have read time and time again that he is though...

"Number-one rule, don't hit a man while he's down."
How grand of you to second-guess Dempsey &, indeed, the entire period, some ninety years later. What breath-taking ignorance & conceit in the same poisoned breath.[/quote]

That's right, never hit a man while'st he is down, he might get up.

jaclem2 wrote:...i've never understood why buzz and so many others think dempsey was such a great finisher. if he landed so many punches in the manner of that fight, how come willard kept getting up, and then came out for two more rounds before he just couldn't come our for a fourth one?

Hey Jaclem I'll take the bait here, would you say he was not a good finisher? I'm always open minded, but if you attempt to throw garbage into that opening I'll fetch it and toss it back. Maybe I should be more specific. When he had a man in trouble he seemed to go into a attack dog mode...often times creating a lot of visible trauma and drama leading to fights being stopped either by the count of 10, or the ref indicating it was over.

If he wasn't who was? Louis seemed to have that attribute, and I would say Frazier did as well...oh and Monzon. Those are the names that probably top my list.

Also, I was just kidding about my liberal statement, I have many liberal friends who claim that due to their time and patience I have become a very good RINO and you'll be happy to hear that they are pleased with my progress.

Not a great finisher?
This was like a textbook example of how to finish an opponent.
It wasn't like Dempsey was letting him off the hook. When Willard got knocked down and got up, Dempsey was all over him and sent him down again. He kept hammering Willard with devastating punches. Willard got a broken jaw, broken ribs, lost teeth, and had his cheekbone broke in 13 places. You also have to give Willard some credit for getting up.
In more modern times, the fight would have been stopped in the first round.

Ambling Alp wrote:Not a great finisher?
This was like a textbook example of how to finish an opponent.
It wasn't like Dempsey was letting him off the hook. When Willard got knocked down and got up, Dempsey was all over him and sent him down again. He kept hammering Willard with devastating punches. Willard got a broken jaw, broken ribs, lost teeth, and had his cheekbone broke in 13 places. You also have to give Willard some credit for getting up.
In more modern times, the fight would have been stopped in the first round.

The extent of Willards injuries are highly debatable. I don't for a second buy the story of the shattered cheekbone, the dislocated jaw, the 2-8 knocked out teeth and the broken ribs. There are plenty of reports and eye witness statements following the fight that tells a different story.

Why so hard to believe that Willard suffered some form of facial injuries? Jack's fists spent quite a bit of time bouncing off of it.