Dempsey-Tunney II ‘on Dave Barry’

[APerno]

Dempsey-Tunney II ‘on Dave Barry’

Legend has it (I am going with legend because I don’t know how one can really prove what I am about to say) that the referee Dave Barry was a last minute (morning of) replacement referee; that Al Capone (of all people) had arranged for a Dempsey friendly referee and the power’s to be in Chicago pulled that referee at the last minute. So legend has it . . .

Barry’s actions during the infamous long-count are well known, but did you ever take a moment and watch Barry’s behavior two rounds later when Dempsey is knocked to his hands and knees?

Barry pays absolutely no attention to Tunney, as to where Tunney is or what Tunney is doing; no effort is made to direct Tunney to a neutral corner, instead Barry begins the count immediately, the moment Dempsey’s knee hits the canvas; two very different sets of behavior.

Why the inconsistent behavior? Was Barry crooked the other way, or did his confusion in the seventh cause him to panic in the other direction in the ninth?

[Ambling Alp II]

As for the first knockdown when Tunney was down: He was right in not starting a count and making Dempsey go to a neutral corner.

Here is the crucial point that I have never been clear on: If this happened now, after the referee made sure Dempsey moved to a neutral corner, he would pick up the count from where the timekeeper left off. (i.e. If the time keeper was at "four" when the referee was ready to start counting the referee would start with "five".)

However, was the neutral corner rule like that at the time? Was Barry supposed to start at "one" or was he supposed to start from where the timekeeper left off? (That probably would have been at about "six", which would have made a huge difference)

As for when Tunney knocked Dempsey down, he certainly messed up and should not have started counting right away. That certainly gives the appearance of biased officiating, whether or not is was an honest mistake or not.

I have read where Barry did have a bit of a shady background.

[Cap]

From the Boxrec page on the fight: Gangster Al Capone told newspaper reporters that he bet heavily on Dempsey. Capone made his bet after hearing that Davy Miller was going to referee the fight and that Miller's brother had wagered heavily on Dempsey. Thinking there might be a connection, Capone bet on Dempsey, too. Shortly before the fight, Illinois boxing officials, believing Miller might be in league with Capone, replaced him with Dave Barry.

As for the rule governing knockdowns. Both men were instructed that in the state of Illinois if a man is knocked down the other man must go to a neutral corner before the count shall begin.

[klompton]

Bullshit. You say to pay attention to Barry's reaction 2 rounds later but clearly did not yourself. When Dempsey knocks Tunney down Barry immediately steps in to count. He stops, with his arm raised and already counting when he sees Dempsey has not returned to the corner. It was Dempsey own reaction not Barry's that MIGHT have hurt his chance at getting the stoppage. However, watch Barry's reaction two rounds later, he leaps in and begins the count just like he did for Tunney, the difference and why we can't say he used that second count unfairly, is that Dempsey rose before Tunney could retreat. So Barry's action was perfectly correct.

[APerno]

Bullshit. You say to pay attention to Barry's reaction 2 rounds later but clearly did not yourself. When Dempsey knocks Tunney down Barry immediately steps in to count. He stops, with his arm raised and already counting when he sees Dempsey has not returned to the corner. It was Dempsey own reaction not Barry's that MIGHT have hurt his chance at getting the stoppage. However, watch Barry's reaction two rounds later, he leaps in and begins the count just like he did for Tunney, the difference and why we can't say he used that second count unfairly, is that Dempsey rose before Tunney could retreat. So Barry's action was perfectly correct.

Sorry but you are incorrect - should I yell 'bullshit' back at you?

Barry's hand goes up but he never begins the count; he is looking at Dempsey from the get go - two rounds later he doesn't hesitate and never note's Tunney. You need to take a second look. No count begins in the 7th.

[klompton]

No, they are identical. What do you propose Barry was doing when he leapt in with his arm raised? Airing out his arm pit? Giving his imaginary friend a high five? Lol. Don't be obtuse. Dempsey apologists have tried to trot this tired excuse out for years. It was a non issue then and it's a non issue now. Even the state athletic commission conducted an inquiry into the count and determined it was conducted in accordance with the rules. The sad fact is that Dempsey fans actually bitch and moan not because Barry violated the rules but because he adhered to them. It's comical. These same fan boys will try to claim Dempsey wasn't familiar with this "new" corner rule. Nonsense. It wasn't a new rule. There is a knockdown corner rule in the marquis of Queensbury rules, there was a corner rule in effect in Toledo which he blatantly violated, and there was a corner rule in place in New York from mid 1920 on, which he violated against Firpo. The one time a referee actually makes him obey this rule he gets his ass handed to him and his fans whine that he couldn't cheat. Lol. Yeah, so call bullshit on me. Please.

[APerno]

No, they are identical. What do you propose Barry was doing when he leapt in with his arm raised? Airing out his arm pit? Giving his imaginary friend a high five? Lol.

Not identical - He was about to begin the count, but became preoccupied with Dempsey. You said he began the count, but he did not, never getting to one. - But acted different when Dempsey went down, then his arm went up and then it came down because he began the count, more importantly he never looked to see where Tunney was the way he had quickly focus on Dempsey in the 7th. . . . is it detail facts you find obtuse? . . . But in the end you have no intention of seeing the difference I claim, so we will just have to let the argument go on for another generation . . . imagine, some guy back in '27 probably said to his buddy, 'they'll be arguing about this after we're dead' and he was right.

[Kalan]

There was no difference in Barry's reactions to the 2 knockdowns.. After Dempsey's knockdown he had his hand up to count immediately but Dempsey was right in front of his face and positioning himself to hit Tunney as soon as he got up.. It was pretty flagrant.. Barry had to direct Dempsey to a neutral corner 3 X -- the last time very emphatically.. When Tunney knocked Dempsey down Barry immediately headed for Tunney to push him toward a neutral corner, but Dempsey got up immediately so Barry just got out of the way.. like he did when Tunney got up..

In those days they used resin to make the canvas less slippery.. Boxers always get Vaseline on their gloves and the resin would stick to the Vaseline when they got knocked down or slipped to the canvas.. Enough boxers were blinded by resin that referees started rubbing their gloves off each time they visited the canvas.. They still wipe the gloves off today, although there's no resin on the canvas anymore. There hasn't been for many years.. They wipe off imaginary dust or dirt.. However, I noticed Barry didn't wipe the gloves after either knockdown.. He let Dempsey tear after Tunney without ordering them to "box" ... No resin wiping was done and no orders to box were issued after either knockdown.

[Ambling Alp II]

Barry did not act correctly when Tunney knocked down Dempsey. He began the count before Tunney went to a neutral corner. He was not supposed to do so.
This is pretty cut and dry.

It gives the appearance that he was biased.

[Chuck1052]

Referee Dave Barry didn't treat Jack Dempsey in a fair manner during the latter's second bout with Gene Tunney? That is ludicrous to an extreme. Dempsey was throwing rabbit punches and trying head-butt Tunney in clinches during much of that bout. In regards to the knockdowns of both fighters during the bout, Dempsey got up almost immediately after being knocked down while Tunney waited until late into the count before getting up from a knockdown. In other words, both fighters reacted in a very different manner after being knocked down during the bout. As a result, trying to compare Barry's actions during both knockdowns is like doing it with apples and oranges.

- Chuck Johnston

[Ambling Alp II]

The rabbit punches are a different topic. It is not ludicrous to say that Barry did not follow the rule when Tunney knocked down Dempsey. It's factually correct to say he made an error in starting a count.
He not supposed to start a count until Tunney moved to a neutral corner.
Tunney had not yet moved to a neutral corner.
Barry should not have started a count. He did.
Therefore, Barry made an error on the second knockdown.

[klompton]

This is nonsense. Anyone can see that Barry began his count immediately during both knockdowns. The only difference is that Dempsey got up before Barry could even react to Tunney, or even before Tunney could retreat to a corner. The people who have harped on this shit for years dont have a leg to stand on. The fact is Dempsey was in violation of a rule he was perfectly familiar with and paid the price. He doesnt have anyone to blame but himself. Not Barry, not Tunney, not that mob, not poison, and not any of the other litany of excuses he and his fans have trotted out since he got his ass handed to him in a one sided manner both times. As I said before, the athletic commission was far more versed in the rules than most of the clowns today who defend Dempsey. They launched an inquiry into the fight and found that Barry followed the rules to the letter and that he was perfectly fair to both parties. Anything else is just pure unadulterated monday morning quarterbacking based on ignorance and fanboy delusions.

A perfect example of this is the ignorance of the rule by those who keep stating categorically that the count shouldnt have been started in either case until the standing fighter retreated to a neutral corner. That is not how the rule was written at all. The Rule was written exactly like this and anyone who cares to check it can do so:

On page 26 of the manual of rules of the Illinois State Athletic Commission, the set of rules by which Dempsey-Tunney 2 was governed, it states:

#87 When a contestant is 'down' his opponent shall retire to the farthest corner of the ring and remain there until the count is completed. Should he fail to do so, the referee will cease counting until he has so retired.

#88 When a knockdown occurs the timekeeper shall immediately arise and announce the seconds audibly as they elapse. The referee shall first see that the opponent retires to the farthest corner of the ring and then, turning to the timekeeper, shall take up the
count in unison with the timekeeper announcing the seconds to the boxer on the floor. Should the boxer on his feet fail to stay in the said corner the referee and timekeeper may cease counting until he has so retired. At the tenth second providing the termination of the round has not happened in the meantime, he will strike the gong twice.

Now, at the rules meeting the day of the fight, when the pool of referees was selected a conference was had because it was realized that there was a conflict between these two specific rules. One saying the referee would cease the count and the other saying he would pick the count up from the timekeeper. It was specifically asked "what happens if a fighter fails to retire to a corner. It was decided that the referee was ultimate authority on the count and that the timekeeper was merely an "auxilliary" meaning that the referee could halt the count as he saw fit. This was agreed upon and attested to by the commission and supported later by the NBA.

As you can see, Barry did nothing wrong and followed the rules to a "T" .

Now go back and watch both knockdowns and tell me Barry acted incorrectly. He didnt. When Tunney was knocked down he jumped in with his arm raised to begin counting, then seeing Dempsey hovering, ushered him to a corner, Dempsey continued to hover and Barry devoted more time to getting Dempsey to his corner. Dempsey's failure to retreat to the corner cost him four seconds and it was clear by both his actions in the ring that night and his history against other opponents (which was well known) he intended to hover over Tunney unless Barry intervened. Hence the count being stopped. When Dempsey was down Barry again immediately jumps in, arm raised, and counts to one but Dempsey rises immediately and there is no time for Tunney to retreat or Barry to intervene and usher Tunney to a corner. Indeed, Tunney is actually taking baby steps AWAY from Dempsey while he was down whereas Jack actually pushes past Barry and goes to stand in the corner directly behind and closest to Tunney, a clear violation of the rule and a why Barry takes so much time with Dempsey. When Barry finally gets Dempsey squared away you can see him look to the knockdown timekeeper and pick up the count, which means not only did Barry halt the count (as has often been mistated) but so did the timekeeper.

[APerno]

This is nonsense. Anyone can see that Barry began his count immediately during both knockdowns. The only difference is that Dempsey got up before Barry could even react to Tunney, or even before Tunney could retreat to a corner. The people who have harped on this poo for years dont have a leg to stand on. The fact is Dempsey was in violation of a rule he was perfectly familiar with and paid the price. He doesnt have anyone to blame but himself. Not Barry, not Tunney, not that mob, not poison, and not any of the other litany of excuses he and his fans have trotted out since he got his ass handed to him in a one sided manner both times. As I said before, the athletic commission was far more versed in the rules than most of the clowns today who defend Dempsey. They launched an inquiry into the fight and found that Barry followed the rules to the letter and that he was perfectly fair to both parties. Anything else is just pure unadulterated monday morning quarterbacking based on ignorance and fanboy delusions.

A perfect example of this is the ignorance of the rule by those who keep stating categorically that the count shouldnt have been started in either case until the standing fighter retreated to a neutral corner. That is not how the rule was written at all. The Rule was written exactly like this and anyone who cares to check it can do so:

On page 26 of the manual of rules of the Illinois State Athletic Commission, the set of rules by which Dempsey-Tunney 2 was governed, it states:

#87 When a contestant is 'down' his opponent shall retire to the farthest corner of the ring and remain there until the count is completed. Should he fail to do so, the referee will cease counting until he has so retired.

#88 When a knockdown occurs the timekeeper shall immediately arise and announce the seconds audibly as they elapse. The referee shall first see that the opponent retires to the farthest corner of the ring and then, turning to the timekeeper, shall take up the
count in unison with the timekeeper announcing the seconds to the boxer on the floor. Should the boxer on his feet fail to stay in the said corner the referee and timekeeper may cease counting until he has so retired. At the tenth second providing the termination of the round has not happened in the meantime, he will strike the gong twice.

Now, at the rules meeting the day of the fight, when the pool of referees was selected a conference was had because it was realized that there was a conflict between these two specific rules. One saying the referee would cease the count and the other saying he would pick the count up from the timekeeper. It was specifically asked "what happens if a fighter fails to retire to a corner. It was decided that the referee was ultimate authority on the count and that the timekeeper was merely an "auxilliary" meaning that the referee could halt the count as he saw fit. This was agreed upon and attested to by the commission and supported later by the NBA.

As you can see, Barry did nothing wrong and followed the rules to a "T" .

Now go back and watch both knockdowns and tell me Barry acted incorrectly. He didnt. When Tunney was knocked down he jumped in with his arm raised to begin counting, then seeing Dempsey hovering, ushered him to a corner, Dempsey continued to hover and Barry devoted more time to getting Dempsey to his corner. Dempsey's failure to retreat to the corner cost him four seconds and it was clear by both his actions in the ring that night and his history against other opponents (which was well known) he intended to hover over Tunney unless Barry intervened. Hence the count being stopped. When Dempsey was down Barry again immediately jumps in, arm raised, and counts to one but Dempsey rises immediately and there is no time for Tunney to retreat or Barry to intervene and usher Tunney to a corner. Indeed, Tunney is actually taking baby steps AWAY from Dempsey while he was down whereas Jack actually pushes past Barry and goes to stand in the corner directly behind and closest to Tunney, a clear violation of the rule and a why Barry takes so much time with Dempsey. When Barry finally gets Dempsey squared away you can see him look to the knockdown timekeeper and pick up the count, which means not only did Barry halt the count (as has often been mistated) but so did the timekeeper.

I read your post out of respect for your passion - but I am done, trying to sway anyone, I do love that it can still get people going; it still does me - I also agree that you can see Tunney looking to 'do the right thing' - he seems to be trying parse Dempsey and Barry, trying to decide where to focus, what he should do next. (There is a good chance that had Tunney moved directly to a neutral corner, Dempsey would have jumped up and rabbit punched him.)

I read the rule that you posted and started to think: we know Barry did not 'pick up the count' as they would today - (thus another argument) but the situation was new back then and I am not even sure there was a time keeper keeping a count back in '27.

But speaking about the rule today - if you take the rule and apply it literally you can end up with a situation where a downed fighter never gets a count from the referee e.g. Ali-Liston II - I feel a downed fighter should get a count from the referee, a downed fighter needs to re-orientate himself and 'the count' becomes a hook the fighter can focus on. Tunney is a perfect example of this, he always claimed he stayed on the canvas until eight or nine but could have gotten up earlier. Tunney got his full count from the referee as he should have, and used it to re-orientate himself before jumping up - Liston never got a count.

[Ambling Alp II]

So the Illinios Stae Athletic Commisssion has two rules supposedly rule 87 and Rule 88 conflict Two rules written back to back I might add. They then decided the day of the fight to go with rule 87? If that is really true, you have to say "only in boxing".
Really gives you a lot of respect for the Boxing Commission.
Did they really do that with every single fight? Decide the day of the fight to go with rule 87 this time, the next time rule 88. Would make a lot more sense to only have one of the two conflicting rules.

btw Klompton - I never claimed that Dempsey got robbed. The second knockdown obviously had no real bearing on the outcome of the fight. I was just interested in the neutral corner rule. It's adoption and application has always been fuzzy.
Also I'm not a Dempsey "fanboy". I like him but like other more. I also like Tunney. I have taken up his cause many times, included against you. No reason to do the "fanboy" routine. I don't do that to you when you go on and on about Harry Greb.

Lastly Klompton, chill out.

[klompton]

But we arent talking about today we are talking about 90 years ago. And yes, there was a timekeeper. His name was Paul Reeler and he was in agreement with the referee on how the situation was handled, as were the two judges sitting ringside and the chairman of the athletic commission. And thats the point, you keep supposing this and supposing that when your opinion on this fight wasnt based on any factual knowledge of the rules in play. People kept spouting off what the rules were and really had no idea. What I posted above was the written rule in the handbook which was used to officiate this fight and the discussion I mentioned above at the meeting prior to the fight was attended by and agreed upon by all of the parties. In fact, the NBA, which Illinois was a member state of LAUDED the officiating of the match. So much nonsense has been written about this fight as to make it the biggest non controversy in boxing history down to syndicated columnist Frank G. Menke purposefully printing a doctored and incomplete version of the rules in his column after the fight so as to drum up controversy. Its ridiculous. The rules were very simple and they were followed by everyone except Dempsey and its his fault. Whether he had followed the rules and could have capitalized on those extra 4 seconds is debateable at best. After a few seconds of bicycling Tunney was back to dominating Dempsey that very round before the bell rang but the fact is that Dempsey didnt do that. He tried to take the same unfair advantage he had several times in the past and this time it MIGHT have cost him.

[klompton]

So the Illinios Stae Athletic Commisssion has two rules supposedly rule 87 and Rule 88 conflict

Dont shoot the messenger. Thats the way it was.

Two rules written back to back I might add. They then decided the day of the fight to go with rule 87? If that is really true, you have to say "only in boxing".
Really gives you a lot of respect for the Boxing Commission.
Did they really do that with every single fight? Decide the day of the fight to go with rule 87 this time, the next time rule 88. Would make a lot more sense to only have one of the two conflicting rules.

It actually makes a lot of sense when you consider that boxing had been regulated on a city by city basis in Illinois until mid 1926 when it was legalized in the state and a formal boxing code was adopted. If Dempsey and Tunney had any concerns over the rules they should have voiced them earlier rather than agree to them or simply gone to another state. Its not like the rule that they were fighting under was that difficult to understand was it? You knock a guy down, you go to the furthest corner so as not to be able to hit him while hes rising like Dempsey loved to do, if you dont the count stops. Whats so difficult or confusing about that? Dempsey had fought under rules very similar or identical in the past so lets not pretend this was some revolutionary statute in boxing. It wasnt.

btw Klompton - I never claimed that Dempsey got robbed. The second knockdown obviously had no real bearing on the outcome of the fight. I was just interested in the neutral corner rule. It's adoption and application has always been fuzzy.

If they were so fuzzy why state categorically that you knew them and how they operated? In reality they werent fuzzy at all if you actually knew them as I did and as Dempsey, Tunney, and everyone else involved in 1927 did. They simple, concise, and direct. The only thing that fuzzied them was all of the misinformation spread about them after the fact by parties who were interested in trying to make Dempsey look better.

Lastly Klompton, chill out.

Lastly, dont come on here pretending you know the rules, "quoting" from them, and then get mad when you get called on it with the ACTUAL rules of the fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Glad you went shorter paragraphs from now on will you? Your posts are hard to read.

You say the rules are simple and yet you show two different rules that contradict one another. No that doesn't actually make sense.
And again, never said Dempsey got robbed. You don't need to keep saying over and over that he wasn't.
You act like it's a big deal that this Commission (which can't even make rules that don't conflict with other) said Barry did a great job. They appointed him. It doesn't make them look good if he gets ripped. Of course they are going to support him. I don't really care what this Commission thinks and I don't know why anyone would.

[klompton]

You say the rules are simple and yet you show two different rules that contradict one another. No that doesn't actually make sense.

And I explained to you that was this was discussed in a meeting between the participants and the commission the day before the fight and addressed. The system worked and was implemented correctly. If you are too simple to understand what was a very simple rule then thats on you. But most importantly both fighters, their representatives, and the promoters agreed to those rules. That pretty much renders moot any complaining by the participants after the fact.

And again, never said Dempsey got robbed. You don't need to keep saying over and over that he wasn't.

Sorry buddy but Im not buying into the idea that you have no agenda when you misquote the rules and pretend you know them. If you dont think Dempsey was robbed then why argue? You can read so you can obviously read the rules and see they were followed so why gripe? Because Dempsey wasnt allowed to stand over a fallen opponent and strike him on rising? Just like "his rabbit punches are a different issue." Its comical, lets just let Dempsey show up with brass knuckles too, otherwise its the commissions fault for him not winning. Get real.

You act like it's a big deal that this Commission (which can't even make rules that don't conflict with other) said Barry did a great job. They appointed him. It doesn't make them look good if he gets ripped. Of course they are going to support him. I don't really care what this Commission thinks and I don't know why anyone would.

The NBA wasnt a commission it was a sanctioning body of which Illinois was a member state. The fact that they, as an independant body, lauded Barry illustrates that he did a good job. They had nothing to do with Barry being appointed. The fact that the chairman and the other officials working the event agreed with Barry is not, as you seem to suggest, a sign of collusion but merely an affirmation that he officiated the fight correctly, which he did, and which you have been unable to show that he didnt. Barry was a highly respected official who had been an amateur and professional boxer himself, the brother of one of Chicago's most respected boxers in history, trained fighters for the CYO including Barney Ross, and had been a referee for nearly twenty years and would continue to referee for several more years. Its beyond ridiculous to pretend he didnt know what he was doing or that he officiated unfairly or that he was corrupt because he actually followed the rules for the long count.

[APerno]

I say Dempsey got robbed! - Even Tunney's kid, to this day says 'my father always said he could have gotten up sooner, but wasn't sure if he could have 'stayed away' had he' . . . Ever notice that the first time Barry yells at Dempsey, Dempsey tries to move closer-in to the "non-farthest corner" - On the knockdown Dempsey goes to a corner and then tries to go deeper into that corner; I think Dempsey failed because of confusion and ignorance, not because he was being arrogant or trying to take advantage; I think Dempsey was trying to do the right thing and failed, and it cost him an opportunity.

Oh, and I still think Barry was inconsistent. Probably take that to my grave.

[Tomasino]

I say Dempsey got robbed! - Even Tunney's kid, to this day says 'my father always said he could have gotten up sooner, but wasn't sure if he could have 'stayed away' had he' . . . Ever notice that the first time Barry yells at Dempsey, Dempsey tries to move closer-in to the "non-farthest corner" - On the knockdown Dempsey goes to a corner and then tries to go deeper into that corner; I think Dempsey failed because of confusion and ignorance, not because he was being arrogant or trying to take advantage; I think Dempsey was trying to do the right thing and failed, and it cost him an opportunity.

Oh, and I still think Barry was inconsistent. Probably take that to my grave.

Dempsey always hovered, always fought dirty and looked to bend and break the rules. Why would it be different in this fight?

[APerno]

Dempsey always hovered, always fought dirty and looked to bend and break the rules. Why would it be different in this fight?

You are correct there was no reason to believe it would be difference - except ironically it was different, different in Dempsey's behavior - Tunney's people, rightly so, felt exactly as you do, Dempsey couldn't be trusted - but I say, if you watch Dempsey's behavior at the knock down he does try to comply, he is just very bad at it - he walks away from Tunney, over to the ropes, and then when Barry yells, he tries go go deeper into a corner, and finally he lets Barry lead him by the hand to the farthest corner - his behavior is nothing like the Firpo or Willard fights - he tries but fails to comply; but he does not hover - again yes, Tunney had every right not to trust him - even when Tunney puts Dempsey down in the 9th, Tunney is unwilling to turn his back on Dempsey; Dempsey was still dangerous even on all fours, so as I said in an earlier post Tunney was not so quick to turn away from Dempsey, rightly so.

There was no reason to expect different; but ironically Dempsey did act different, he tried to comply, and it cost him.

Here is food for thought: if Dempsey had used his body to push Barry out of the way and get into position to nail Tunney with a sucker punch as he tried to rise (e.g. Firpo or Willard) do you think they would have had the balls to DQ him or would he have walked away champion?

[Ambling Alp II]

You say the rules are simple and yet you show two different rules that contradict one another. No that doesn't actually make sense.

And I explained to you that was this was discussed in a meeting between the participants and the commission the day before the fight and addressed. The system worked and was implemented correctly. If you are too simple to understand what was a very simple rule then thats on you. But most importantly both fighters, their representatives, and the promoters agreed to those rules. That pretty much renders moot any complaining by the participants after the fact.

And again, never said Dempsey got robbed. You don't need to keep saying over and over that he wasn't.

Sorry buddy but Im not buying into the idea that you have no agenda when you misquote the rules and pretend you know them. If you dont think Dempsey was robbed then why argue? You can read so you can obviously read the rules and see they were followed so why gripe? Because Dempsey wasnt allowed to stand over a fallen opponent and strike him on rising? Just like "his rabbit punches are a different issue." Its comical, lets just let Dempsey show up with brass knuckles too, otherwise its the commissions fault for him not winning. Get real.

You act like it's a big deal that this Commission (which can't even make rules that don't conflict with other) said Barry did a great job. They appointed him. It doesn't make them look good if he gets ripped. Of course they are going to support him. I don't really care what this Commission thinks and I don't know why anyone would.

The NBA wasnt a commission it was a sanctioning body of which Illinois was a member state. The fact that they, as an independant body, lauded Barry illustrates that he did a good job. They had nothing to do with Barry being appointed. The fact that the chairman and the other officials working the event agreed with Barry is not, as you seem to suggest, a sign of collusion but merely an affirmation that he officiated the fight correctly, which he did, and which you have been unable to show that he didnt. Barry was a highly respected official who had been an amateur and professional boxer himself, the brother of one of Chicago's most respected boxers in history, trained fighters for the CYO including Barney Ross, and had been a referee for nearly twenty years and would continue to referee for several more years. Its beyond ridiculous to pretend he didnt know what he was doing or that he officiated unfairly or that he was corrupt because he actually followed the rules for the long count.

I will keep it simple. Might want to try yourself sometime.
-It doesn't make sense to to have two contradictory rules and then the day of the fight tell the fighters which one is going to be followed. Mindboggling that you can't see this.
-If I had an agenda, why say that Dempsey wasn't robbed?
-Since Illionois is a member state, the NBA is not an independent body. The NBA oversees the llinois Boxing Commission who appointed Barry. They both look bad if it percieved that the referee acted poorly. Btw, I'm sure you know that Barry was no choir boy.
-Stop being so pompous. Other people read as well as you. I and other people have read a lot about this fight from many different sources. Stop acting you know everything and everyone else knows nothing.

[klompton]

Dempsey always hovered, always fought dirty and looked to bend and break the rules. Why would it be different in this fight?

You are correct there was no reason to believe it would be difference - except ironically it was different, different in Dempsey's behavior - Tunney's people, rightly so, felt exactly as you do, Dempsey couldn't be trusted - but I say, if you watch Dempsey's behavior at the knock down he does try to comply, he is just very bad at it - he walks away from Tunney, over to the ropes, and then when Barry yells, he tries go go deeper into a corner, and finally he lets Barry lead him by the hand to the farthest corner - his behavior is nothing like the Firpo or Willard fights - he tries but fails to comply; but he does not hover - again yes, Tunney had every right not to trust him - even when Tunney puts Dempsey down in the 9th, Tunney is unwilling to turn his back on Dempsey; Dempsey was still dangerous even on all fours, so as I said in an earlier post Tunney was not so quick to turn away from Dempsey, rightly so.

There was no reason to expect different; but ironically Dempsey did act different, he tried to comply, and it cost him.

Here is food for thought: if Dempsey had used his body to push Barry out of the way and get into position to nail Tunney with a sucker punch as he tried to rise (e.g. Firpo or Willard) do you think they would have had the balls to DQ him or would he have walked away champion?

This is not true. Watch the Firpo fight. Dempsey knocks Firpo down right by a corner and then literally steps over him to make sure he is right there in the closest corner possible and when Firpo rises he hits him. You keep stating "the rules say this" and "watch this knockdown" or "watch the firpo fight" and yet every single time you have your facts bass ackwards.

Go to 2:03.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wciZKMMW7Xc

Look familiar? Care to explain that? Want me to quote the corner rule active in New York at the time? Because guess what. It was almost identical to Illinois' when Dempsey and Tunney fought there.

[klompton]

I will keep it simple. Might want to try yourself sometime.
-It doesn't make sense to to have two contradictory rules and then the day of the fight tell the fighters which one is going to be followed. Mindboggling that you can't see this.

They fought under one rule. ONE RULE. It doesnt matter if the commission had 30 different contradictory rules in their rule book because they only used ONE rule for this particular incident. The fact that you think this rule was difficult to understand says more about you than it does about the commission, Dave Barry, or Dempsey. Its not like Dempsey and Tunney had been fighting in Illinois all of their lives under one set of rules and suddenly the night before the fight the commission changed it. And even if that were the case both Dempsey and Tunney were notified of it right when the decision was made and agreed to it. Period. Its as simple as that. It doesnt take a fornicating genius to understand that.

-If I had an agenda, why say that Dempsey wasn't robbed?

Why keep arguing a hopeless point that has no basis in fact and that wont change anything? You are jousting at windmills so I can only assume that you have some agenda. The rules dont support your argument, in fact they refute what you yourself claimed were the rules used in the fight. The facts dont support it, so why continue?

-Since Illionois is a member state, the NBA is not an independent body. The NBA oversees the llinois Boxing Commission who appointed Barry. They both look bad if it percieved that the referee acted poorly.

You have no clue what you are talking about. The NBA didnt oversee the Illinois boxing commission. They had no say in their rules, no say in the selection of officials, and no power whatsoever over the body itself. A boxing association does not trump the law of a sovereign state. Go ask any commissioner in any state in the country whether the EBU, the WBA, the WBO, the WBC, the IBF, or any other sanctioning body can dictate state statutes to that states commission. Thats absolutely ignorant and shows a complete and utter lack of the understanding of not only how state govt works but also of how boxing bodies operate. The NBA was a SANCTIONING body. Do you understand what that even means? Where that term comes from? The NBA was formed as an association of like minded boxing commissions to battle, you guessed it, corruption, adopt a set of standards whereby the championship and its contender process was more structured, and to counteract powerful, wealthy state commissions such as New York, which sought to control and dictate the sport. So yes, when it gives its stamp of approval on Barry's performance in 1927 it means something. In those days they didnt ransom titles for sanctioning fees and operate like third world country dictators. You are letting your minute understanding of boxing bodies TODAY cloud your understanding of how they operated a century ago.

Btw, I'm sure you know that Barry was no choir boy.

And unless you have proof of Barry being anything other than a highly respected official you are doing nothing but blowing smoke out of your ass in attempt to win an argument youve already lost.

-Stop being so pompous. Other people read as well as you. I and other people have read a lot about this fight from many different sources. Stop acting you know everything and everyone else knows nothing.

Ill stop being pompous when stop pretending youve read what you say youve read and then completely misquote it, lie about, misconstrue its meaning, and take it completely out of context in order to support your flimsy ass argument. Until then continue to mistake my disdain for your ignorance as pomposity.

[APerno]

Dempsey always hovered, always fought dirty and looked to bend and break the rules. Why would it be different in this fight?

You are correct there was no reason to believe it would be difference - except ironically it was different, different in Dempsey's behavior - Tunney's people, rightly so, felt exactly as you do, Dempsey couldn't be trusted - but I say, if you watch Dempsey's behavior at the knock down he does try to comply, he is just very bad at it - he walks away from Tunney, over to the ropes, and then when Barry yells, he tries go go deeper into a corner, and finally he lets Barry lead him by the hand to the farthest corner - his behavior is nothing like the Firpo or Willard fights - he tries but fails to comply; but he does not hover - again yes, Tunney had every right not to trust him - even when Tunney puts Dempsey down in the 9th, Tunney is unwilling to turn his back on Dempsey; Dempsey was still dangerous even on all fours, so as I said in an earlier post Tunney was not so quick to turn away from Dempsey, rightly so.

There was no reason to expect different; but ironically Dempsey did act different, he tried to comply, and it cost him.

Here is food for thought: if Dempsey had used his body to push Barry out of the way and get into position to nail Tunney with a sucker punch as he tried to rise (e.g. Firpo or Willard) do you think they would have had the balls to DQ him or would he have walked away champion?

This is not true. Watch the Firpo fight. Dempsey knocks Firpo down right by a corner and then literally steps over him to make sure he is right there in the closest corner possible and when Firpo rises he hits him. You keep stating "the rules say this" and "watch this knockdown" or "watch the firpo fight" and yet every single time you have your facts bass ackwards.

You're unnecessarily hostile.