BoxRec

It had to happen didn`t it ...

After the excellent pieces recently written by Danny Flexen, Scoop Malinowski, James Slater, Tris Dixon etc. along comes a piece that shows even BN quality control let one slip under the radar occasionally.

Gavin Evans piece on Jack Dempsey was terrible. Like the most obvious troll thread you will ever see. Every critism, accusation and rumour ever brought-up or even made-up is in his article ...

Favourite pieces were the loaded gloves myth once again repeated ... this time instead of the plaster paris its a steel object .. this time actual film footage of an iron object being dropped from Dempseys hand and somebody concealing it ... of course the film no longer exists .... as if a film of such importance kept safe and secret till 1963 ... could then be somehow lost

tonyevs wrote:It had to happen didn`t it ...

After the excellent pieces recently written by Danny Flexen, Scoop Malinowski, James Slater, Tris Dixon etc. along comes a piece that shows even BN quality control let one slip under the radar occasionally.

Gavin Evans piece on Jack Dempsey was terrible. Like the most obvious troll thread you will ever see. Every critism, accusation and rumour ever brought-up or even made-up is in his article ...

Favourite pieces were the loaded gloves myth once again repeated ... this time instead of the plaster paris its a steel object .. this time actual film footage of an iron object being dropped from Dempseys hand and somebody concealing it ... of course the film no longer exists .... as if a film of such importance kept safe and secret till 1963 ... could then be somehow lost

Hmmmm haven't read it yet. BUT I always found it odd that dempsey is in the film hitting Willard with the thumb side of the glove ratrher than the knucle; and hurting him.

As I understand Willard kept an iron bolt tro his dying day and said that Dempsey was hitting him with it.

Sounds like a poor re-tread of Pacheco's book?

The article aside, what's beyond doubt is that Dempsey was a nasty piece of 5hit.

Srebmun wrote:The article aside, what's beyond doubt is that Dempsey was a nasty piece of 5hit.

Which isn't a quality you want in the baddest man on the planet is it.

Imagine if you will, the numbers Dempsey would be doing now were he to emerge to challenge the heavyweight big boys?

Here is one number he'd do, 74.

Seconds to knock out Wladimir Klitschko.

He wasn't that good tho'.

And besides, the Heavyweight Champ should be a spiffing chap, a gentleman - who just happens to beat the 5hite out of everyone.

I've read the article now. It was a little weak and one sided. And certainly suffered from applying modern-day sensitivities to past eras.

In short it just felt like a rudhed and lazy piece of journalism. I mean; I'm sure there is noone who thinks Dempsey was some sort of angel. It's hardly a revelation.

I mean what's next? An article saying Tyosn was a convicted rapist, am assaulter of women and old folk? A drug taker? a violent guy? A hater of white people? a dangerous guy?

Wow....big news

Im not that keen on the writer to be honest.He did a terrible front page piece on Ricky Hatton not boxing Witter a couple of years ago that was just plain out of order.We all would have loved to have seen that bout but this article was ridiculous.

Was the Firpo fight also fixed? Dempsey hammered him to the canvas as many times as he did Willard. Dempsey was too quick and powerful for the giants.

bennie wrote:Was the Firpo fight also fixed? Dempsey hammered him to the canvas as many times as he did Willard. Dempsey was too quick and powerful for the giants.

indeed, Willard was a helpless stationary target to pound on, I never took his facial injuries to be a sign of cheating.