Cap wrote: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.
