Guys can this bout be taken off Dempsey's record? Its ridiculous to call this a championship, much less a real bout. Its bad enough that several of Dempsey's barnstorming bouts against non-professional unknowns have been added to his record but this bout was an exhibition. Period. It was billed as an exhibition, it was fought with big exhibition gloves, Darcy wasa middleweight, Dempsey's stablemate and sparring partner. I mean what more does one need to offer to get this bout recognized as what it was?
The Buffalo Evening News stated Dempsey buffetted Jimmy Darcy around with BIG GLOVES for four rounds. It goes on to state that while the NYSAC commission sent word that they did not recognize exhibition bouts (ridiculous, exhibitions were fought all over New York) the News goes on to state that the bout "...went on for the whole four rounds, "to a decision" (their quotes, not mine, obviously intended to show how ridiculous the situation was) though nobody heard the official verdict. While at the business of preventing an "exhibition" the commission forgot to bar the pillow gloves, so Dempsey buffetted his man about the ring skillfully."
This was all part of an exhibition tour Dempsey was doing which saw him in an exhibition on August 2 in Scranton against Darcy again, and also Larry Williams.
In August the News, once again clearly poking fun at the situation, added: "JACK DEMPSEY is to box a 'suitable opponent" at Braves Field, Boston tonight. He is probably to he selected from a group consisting of Jimmy Darcy or Larry Williams. Wonder if the Massachusetts Boxing commission will step in make another "real fight" for the heavyweight championship of the world, as the New York State commish did when Dempsey put on the pillows with Darey here?"
The Buffalo Courier stated: "Jack Dempsey defeated Jimmy Darcy four round exhibition, judges decision" In the accompanying article it refers to the bout several times as an exhibition. Dempsey was dressed for an exhibition, wearing long blue tights, not trunks."
The Buffalo Morning Express, which was responsible for the hyberbole sorrounding the bout, referred to it stating it "practically was of championship order." This implies that it was NOT a championship at least.
On July 7, just two weeks before this exhibition, Dempsey appeared in a four round exhibition just over in Syracuse against Jimmy Darcy and, surprise, nobody called that a championship.
Finally, not that I think it matters, but I can find no mention in the Walker Law (which governed boxing in at the time) and no amendments which specify that New York does not recognize exhibition bouts. Indeed I can name several that took place during this time frame, many of which were highly publicized.
Jack Dempsey-Jimmy Darcy, stretching credibility
Re: Jack Dempsey-Jimmy Darcy, stretching credibility
True but commisssion did say next day that they considered it a real bout and if Dempsey lost so would his title
Re: Jack Dempsey-Jimmy Darcy, stretching credibility
But the whole point is that Dempsey wouldnt have lost. Even the newspaper states that while it was supposed to be a to a decision "nobody heard it" giving the impression that either no decision was officially rendered and this was just done to appease the commission or that nobody paid any attention because everyone understood it was an exhibition bout. It wasnt a real bout. It was a fight with big gloves against a middleweight who was Dempsey's sparring partner and stablemate. It wasnt a real fight. Im not even sure I buy that the commission considered it a real bout. Why would they? Its the only instance I can find where such a rule was mentioned and where they took the step to say so. Few, if any, considered it a real bout and Dempsey fought other exhibition bouts in New York without those being called real bouts. Unless, you want to go back and retroactively add them to his record. There's a reason why this bout didnt pop up on his record then and didnt for nearly 100 years. Its because nobody took it seriously, and rightly so. It really stretches the credibility of this site to add that to his record and pretend it was anything other than a real bout. Harry Greb fought exhibitions in New during this time, why not add those bouts to his record? Gene Tunney as well among many others? Why this rush to pad Dempsey's record with exhibition bouts? Are you, or anyone else, going to tell me that Jack Dempsey defended his championship in 1922 against his middleweight sparring partner/stablemate with big training gloves? Come one! In fact, here is a rule that actually does appear in the Walker Law: In the state of New York there can be no fight between two participants where there is a difference of weight of more than 18 pounds unless the participants are light heavyweights or heavyweights. Jimmy Darcy was a middleweight who the month before this bout weighed 161 and the month after weighed 165. You want to argue that there was not a difference of 18 pounds? I would need to go back and check but I also believe the Walker Law set championship fights at 15 rounds and dictated the size of the gloves. So no, I dont think its a stretch to suggest there was something very fishy (possibly a last minute promotional ploy to boost the gate) about the NYSAC suddenly taking a stand on this ONE exhibition bout and calling all the way from New York City to Buffalo (which had a fantastic history of self governing) to make sure Dempsey abided by a rule that didnt exist.
Re: Jack Dempsey-Jimmy Darcy, stretching credibility
I agree with you. Everything leading up to bout was an exhibition. But commissionor did say that afterward.
Re: Jack Dempsey-Jimmy Darcy, stretching credibility
Based on your research klompton and quoting all the local sources of the bout that you mentioned, I deleted the Darcy bout from the official record and made it part of the biography of Jack Dempsey. You can view it on this page under "Championship Fight." Thanks for all of your research 
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Re: Jack Dempsey-Jimmy Darcy, stretching credibility
Are we next to include the 100 bare knuckle fights Dempsey had as Kid Blackie to his record as well?
Re: Jack Dempsey-Jimmy Darcy, stretching credibility
I completely disagree -- the bout was a sanctioned match by the NY commission.
The reason the Commission said it was a "real bout" and not an exhibition was the notion that applied only to the Heavyweight champ -- his title was at risk whenever he entered the ring since weight limits were not important. So, he could NOT fight an exhibition!
This philosophy -- again only in NY as far as i can tell -- applied all the way through the 1940s, when Joe Louis was faced with the same issue when he fought Johnny Davis in Buffalo. I don't see it an issue after that -- although if I recall corretly this was Nat Fleischer's position always!
Yes Darcy and Davis are anomalies -- but they were considered real bouts by the commission at the time and should be included. Explanations can be in the WIKI of course.
Neither my opinion nor Klompton's should count -- but the Commission's opinion at the time of the bouts should.
I'll add the bout back, unless someone else can do so for me.
-- Mike DeLisa
The reason the Commission said it was a "real bout" and not an exhibition was the notion that applied only to the Heavyweight champ -- his title was at risk whenever he entered the ring since weight limits were not important. So, he could NOT fight an exhibition!
This philosophy -- again only in NY as far as i can tell -- applied all the way through the 1940s, when Joe Louis was faced with the same issue when he fought Johnny Davis in Buffalo. I don't see it an issue after that -- although if I recall corretly this was Nat Fleischer's position always!
Yes Darcy and Davis are anomalies -- but they were considered real bouts by the commission at the time and should be included. Explanations can be in the WIKI of course.
Neither my opinion nor Klompton's should count -- but the Commission's opinion at the time of the bouts should.
I'll add the bout back, unless someone else can do so for me.
-- Mike DeLisa
Re: Jack Dempsey-Jimmy Darcy, stretching credibility
Thats ridiculous. This was clearly a one off instance that nobody took seriously. Nobody.
The idea that there was some special rule that applied only to the heavyweight champion is ridiculous. Show me where it is written. Ive been through the Walker law and all of its amendments to this point and there is nothing that specifies anything even close to that. Indeed, as Ive shown, Dempsey took part in other exhibitions in New York under this same law. Do you want to come on here and claim youve suddenly found some new Dempsey title defenses and add those as well? Gene Tunney boxed exhibitions in New York, should those be title defenses? We can look at the other champions as well and add those as title defenses also, seeing as how there is no rule saying it only applies to the HW champion.
Would that make sense? Nobody's opinion matters on this but by all means lets bring in Nat Fleischer who was not a member of the commission either. But, for giggles go back and look at Fleischer's published record for Dempsey and you wont see this listed as a title bout by him either.
Dempsey wore large sparring gloves, ring tights, fought his middleweight sparring partner/stablemate for four light hearted rounds, (and for all we know they were two minute rounds) in an advertised exhibition that nobody took seriously. Do you honestly want to argue that Dempsey could have possibly lost the heavyweight championship that day? I mean really.
It was an exhibition and should stay as such. The NYSAC was not infallible, particularly not during this period. The fact that a commission secretary stated that they considered it an exhibition a real bout means little to me. They also considered Dave Rosenberg a middleweight champion (yet hes not even listed on your site as a title claimant much less a champion. Why not if the NYSAC Commissions rulings are so important?). It was goofy, backwards rulings such as these that usually came down from the increasingly erratic and likely senile mind of William Muldoon that gave rise to the NBA and hurt the credibility of the commission. People exibiting a little bit of common sense back then understood this. More people today need to show more of that common sense.
Its like posting that Dempsey and Terry Keller was billed for the light heavyweight championship on Dempsey's record. Any promoter could bill any fight as anything he wanted. Do you know how many inoccuous fights were billed as being for this championship or that championship? I dont, because there were hundreds of them. What makes this one special? Particularly in light of the fact that Terry Keller never got so much as a whiff of a championship and Dempsey was several months away from turning down a fight with Dillon who had some recognition as champion. Or adding his fight with Fred Saddy which was generally considered to be a fix.
The idea that there was some special rule that applied only to the heavyweight champion is ridiculous. Show me where it is written. Ive been through the Walker law and all of its amendments to this point and there is nothing that specifies anything even close to that. Indeed, as Ive shown, Dempsey took part in other exhibitions in New York under this same law. Do you want to come on here and claim youve suddenly found some new Dempsey title defenses and add those as well? Gene Tunney boxed exhibitions in New York, should those be title defenses? We can look at the other champions as well and add those as title defenses also, seeing as how there is no rule saying it only applies to the HW champion.
Would that make sense? Nobody's opinion matters on this but by all means lets bring in Nat Fleischer who was not a member of the commission either. But, for giggles go back and look at Fleischer's published record for Dempsey and you wont see this listed as a title bout by him either.
Dempsey wore large sparring gloves, ring tights, fought his middleweight sparring partner/stablemate for four light hearted rounds, (and for all we know they were two minute rounds) in an advertised exhibition that nobody took seriously. Do you honestly want to argue that Dempsey could have possibly lost the heavyweight championship that day? I mean really.
It was an exhibition and should stay as such. The NYSAC was not infallible, particularly not during this period. The fact that a commission secretary stated that they considered it an exhibition a real bout means little to me. They also considered Dave Rosenberg a middleweight champion (yet hes not even listed on your site as a title claimant much less a champion. Why not if the NYSAC Commissions rulings are so important?). It was goofy, backwards rulings such as these that usually came down from the increasingly erratic and likely senile mind of William Muldoon that gave rise to the NBA and hurt the credibility of the commission. People exibiting a little bit of common sense back then understood this. More people today need to show more of that common sense.
Its like posting that Dempsey and Terry Keller was billed for the light heavyweight championship on Dempsey's record. Any promoter could bill any fight as anything he wanted. Do you know how many inoccuous fights were billed as being for this championship or that championship? I dont, because there were hundreds of them. What makes this one special? Particularly in light of the fact that Terry Keller never got so much as a whiff of a championship and Dempsey was several months away from turning down a fight with Dillon who had some recognition as champion. Or adding his fight with Fred Saddy which was generally considered to be a fix.