BoxRec

Posted: **24 Feb 2009, 23:05**

Jack Dempsey was the biggest myth in boxing history. Outside of Paul Bunyan, John Henry and Pecos Bill, there is no bigger tall tale than the "giant killer, slayer of ogres" known as Jack Dempsey. For decades, many listed him as being the greatest HW of all time, and even stated that he would have butchered Joe Louis inside of three-five rounds.

The fact of the matter is this: Jack Dempsey's ranking in history is based more on legend and rumor, than by actual facts.

The facts are, Jack Dempsey probably never faced a genuine challenger until facing Gene Tunney, and by then Dempsey was too old to do anything anyways. After he lost, he said he was doped before the fight. Bullshit. Jess Willard wouldn't have made a decent sparring partner for the Klitschko's let alone being a formidable heavyweight. Billy Miske was on the downside and would die in a few years from Brights disease. Tommy Gibbons was a light heavyweight. Georges Carpentier was inactive for virtually five years and was a light heavyweight, getting beat by guys like Siki and Loughran rather easily. He flat out refused to fight Wills, and flat out refused to fight Harry Greb. Not to mention, also, that the so-called 'Greatest Fight First half of The Century' with Firpo was supposed to be a set up easy win for Dempsey, but Firpo didnt follow the script, and rumors still to this day persist that Kearns had footage spliced so a long count controversy wouldnt ruin Dempsey's career.

Dempsey, at his best, was a danger for alot of limited big men, and smaller men, but the truth is that Dempsey, imo, wouldnt have defeated Marciano, Foreman, Ali, Louis, Frazier, Johnson or any of the all time greats.

Posted: **24 Feb 2009, 23:57**

HomicideHenry wrote:Jack Dempsey was the biggest myth in boxing history.

- They're all myths, son, that's what Legends inspire.

Dempsey was truth, justice, and singlehandedly resettled the East in his image.

Gibbons holds the first two wins of 3 Greb encounters and fought everyone from middles to heavies. Carpentier loses 5 yrs, big whoop. Big George lost a decade, Vitali 4 yrs. Georges took prime Jeannette that Jack Johnson avoided like the plague to a 15 rd disputed decision and held French, Euro, or World titles in every division from light to heavy. The loss to Siki was a French Farce you know nothing of and occurred after the Dempsey bout.

So what if folks think Dempsey beats Louis? I do too and both beat Ali, so what do you say about them apples, eh?

All myths inspired by legends.

Posted: **24 Feb 2009, 23:59**

You actually think Louis and Dempsey could have defeated Muhammad Ali?

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 00:17**

A pretty ignorant post all around.

Miske despite his condition was a top 5 contender when he faced Dempsey and Brennan in the top 10. You cast off one of the greatest PFP fighters in Tommy Gibbons as just a 'light HW' yet claim Dempsey ducked Greb, a middleweight who Gibbons went 2-2 with. Carpentier had been inactive due to a little something called World War I and had been the last holder of the 'white' HW championship that arose in Johnson's time.

Plus you neatly omit the fact that Dempsey tore through the division in 1917-18 defeating practically every top contender in the division save Wills (Fulton, Levinsky,Smith,Morris, Miske, Brennan etc.) The black foursome were on a sharp decline so claiming he ducked Langford won't cut it, as Langford had been defeated by Fulton, who Dempsey destroyed in seconds.

Plus you talk about myths but the 'Rickard spliced the film' tag is one of the biggest myths I can think of. All the people who were THERE live saw Dempsey make it back well within 10 seconds.

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 00:23**

Tell me different then.

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 06:53**

HomicideHenry wrote:Jack Dempsey was the biggest myth in boxing history. Outside of Paul Bunyan, John Henry and Pecos Bill, there is no bigger tall tale than the "giant killer, slayer of ogres" known as Jack Dempsey. For decades, many listed him as being the greatest HW of all time, and even stated that he would have butchered Joe Louis inside of three-five rounds.

The fact of the matter is this: Jack Dempsey's ranking in history is based more on legend and rumor, than by actual facts.

The facts are, Jack Dempsey probably never faced a genuine challenger until facing Gene Tunney, and by then Dempsey was too old to do anything anyways. After he lost, he said he was doped before the fight. Bullshit. Jess Willard wouldn't have made a decent sparring partner for the Klitschko's let alone being a formidable heavyweight. Billy Miske was on the downside and would die in a few years from Brights disease. Tommy Gibbons was a light heavyweight. Georges Carpentier was inactive for virtually five years and was a light heavyweight, getting beat by guys like Siki and Loughran rather easily. He flat out refused to fight Wills, and flat out refused to fight Harry Greb. Not to mention, also, that the so-called 'Greatest Fight First half of The Century' with Firpo was supposed to be a set up easy win for Dempsey, but Firpo didnt follow the script, and rumors still to this day persist that Kearns had footage spliced so a long count controversy wouldnt ruin Dempsey's career.

Dempsey, at his best, was a danger for alot of limited big men, and smaller men, but the truth is that Dempsey, imo, wouldnt have defeated Marciano, Foreman, Ali, Louis, Frazier, Johnson or any of the all time greats.

Funny --- there's a school of thought which suggests you can do this with nearly all great fighters --- & it's dead-right.

Dempsey has a rightful place in the pantheon of greats.

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 08:25**

Dempsey had one of the greatest left hooks in boxing history, arguably the best of all. Like many of the old-time champs winning the title did not oblige you to defend 3 times a year. If he’d have had to do that then he would have done it.

He beat a lot of contenders. He has a great KO percentage. If he’d have fought and beat Wills then there would be no argument. I tend to think that the timing of the fight would decide the winner.

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 11:19**

HomicideHenry wrote:You actually think Louis and Dempsey could have defeated Muhammad Ali?

Yes. Operative words are "could have." "Would have" . . . who can say? But could have, most certainly.

One of the interesting things to me is that many of the knowledgeable folks in boxing who saw Dempsey live and in his prime consistently ranked him as the best, or nearly the best, heavyweight they had ever seen. I think you can count on one hand the number of experts from his day who did not think he was a phenomenal fighter. In fact, right now, I can't think of a single one off the top of my head. The fact that so many people of his era held him so highly cares alot of weight with me.

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 11:26**

raylawpc wrote:
HomicideHenry wrote:You actually think Louis and Dempsey could have defeated Muhammad Ali?
Yes. Operative words are "could have." "Would have" . . . who can say? But could have, most certainly.

One of the interesting things to me is that many of the knowledgeable folks in boxing who saw Dempsey live and in his prime consistently ranked him as the best, or nearly the best, heavyweight they had ever seen. I think you can count on one hand the number of experts from his day who did not think he was a phenomenal fighter. In fact, right now, I can't think of a single one off the top of my head. The fact that so many people of his era held him so highly cares alot of weight with me.

The films help as well. Very fast and precise puncher. Maybe not the greatest HW of all time, but with his speed he would have been a problem for any other HW in history.

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 11:28**

HomicideHenry wrote:You actually think Louis and Dempsey could have defeated Muhammad Ali?

- Officially, 5 did. Unofficially, arguably at least 5 or more losses on his record.

The only heavy nobody could beat according to record is Rocky. Do you actually think Ali could beat Rocky officially or unofficially?

We have the unofficial fight on tape.

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 12:25**

Depends on which version of Ali we're talking about.

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 13:33**

From the perspective of Boxrec's Alltime Rating he was one of the best of his times:

He was among the tops in a lot of years, but top1 only 1923.

Code: Select all

Heavyweight          1917 1180.6  17615 Harry Wills
Heavyweight          1917  896.2  11023 Sam Langford
Heavyweight          1917  758.8  11622 Sam McVea
Heavyweight          1917  740.7  11318 Kid Norfolk
Heavyweight          1917  628.5  11631 Joe Jeannette
Heavyweight          1917  597.4  39878 Tango Kid
Heavyweight          1917  568.7  10603 Bill Brennan
Heavyweight          1917  532.2  11295 Leo Houck
Heavyweight          1917  514.8  11303 Bartley Madden
Heavyweight #10      1917  509.2   9009 Jack Dempsey
Heavyweight          1917  491.3  10588 Carl Morris
Heavyweight          1917  462.8  13546 Charley Weinert
Heavyweight          1917  456.5  40205 Texas Tate
Heavyweight          1917  455.5  11891 Richie Mitchell
Heavyweight          1917  454.7  10596 Fred Fulton

Heavyweight          1918 1699.1  17615 Harry Wills
Heavyweight #2       1918 1047.7   9009 Jack Dempsey
Heavyweight          1918  789.4  10596 Fred Fulton
Heavyweight          1918  776.2  11303 Bartley Madden
Heavyweight          1918  723.3  10592 Billy Miske
Heavyweight          1918  704.7  11631 Joe Jeannette
Heavyweight          1918  577.0  11891 Richie Mitchell
Heavyweight          1918  570.5  11622 Sam McVea
Heavyweight          1918  523.2  10585 Willie Meehan
Heavyweight          1918  492.7  11660 Jack Thompson
Heavyweight          1918  470.5  13546 Charley Weinert
Heavyweight          1918  462.3  11023 Sam Langford
Heavyweight          1918  448.8  11318 Kid Norfolk
Heavyweight          1918  437.2  11295 Leo Houck
Heavyweight          1918  396.1  11328 Johnny Wilson

Heavyweight          1919 1673.8  17615 Harry Wills
Heavyweight #2       1919 1012.1   9009 Jack Dempsey
Heavyweight          1919  830.8  11318 Kid Norfolk
Heavyweight          1919  815.1  10596 Fred Fulton
Heavyweight          1919  646.6  11023 Sam Langford
Heavyweight          1919  631.2  10592 Billy Miske
Heavyweight          1919  606.2  11891 Richie Mitchell
Heavyweight          1919  572.2  11631 Joe Jeannette
Heavyweight          1919  551.7  10603 Bill Brennan
Heavyweight          1919  505.9  43215 Albert Kid Lloyd
Heavyweight          1919  462.4  11303 Bartley Madden
Heavyweight          1919  435.1   1187 Jack Johnson
Heavyweight          1919  388.4  11660 Jack Thompson
Heavyweight          1919  383.4  39514 Jim Coffey
Heavyweight          1919  347.3  53389 Andy Chaney

Heavyweight          1920 2308.6  17615 Harry Wills
Heavyweight #2       1920 1209.4   9009 Jack Dempsey
Heavyweight          1920  997.5  10596 Fred Fulton
Heavyweight          1920  847.3  11891 Richie Mitchell
Heavyweight          1920  821.9  11300 Chuck Wiggins
Heavyweight          1920  598.2  13546 Charley Weinert
Heavyweight          1920  555.7  10592 Billy Miske
Heavyweight          1920  538.4  11647 Frank Moran
Heavyweight          1920  529.0  17603 George Cook
Heavyweight          1920  508.6  11310 Ted Jamieson
Heavyweight          1920  481.0   1187 Jack Johnson
Heavyweight          1920  456.7  10603 Bill Brennan
Heavyweight          1920  448.3  11315 Jack Renault
Heavyweight          1920  425.8  11303 Bartley Madden
Heavyweight          1920  411.3  11293 Bob Roper

Heavyweight          1921 2028.8  17615 Harry Wills
Heavyweight          1921 1685.0   9019 Harry Greb
Heavyweight #3       1921 1136.3   9009 Jack Dempsey
Heavyweight          1921  924.0  10596 Fred Fulton
Heavyweight          1921  824.1  10592 Billy Miske
Heavyweight          1921  779.9   9046 Gene Tunney
Heavyweight          1921  611.3  10603 Bill Brennan
Heavyweight          1921  573.8  13546 Charley Weinert
Heavyweight          1921  506.6  11303 Bartley Madden
Heavyweight          1921  500.1  17603 George Cook
Heavyweight          1921  469.9  13544 Eddie O'Hare
Heavyweight          1921  466.9  11293 Bob Roper
Heavyweight          1921  407.2  32006 Joe Beckett
Heavyweight          1921  394.1  26752 Bill Tate
Heavyweight          1921  377.1  43215 Albert Kid Lloyd

Heavyweight          1922 2173.2   9019 Harry Greb
Heavyweight          1922 1306.1  11254 Tommy Gibbons
Heavyweight          1922 1045.1   9046 Gene Tunney
Heavyweight          1922  987.2  17615 Harry Wills
Heavyweight          1922  903.5  10592 Billy Miske
Heavyweight #6       1922  826.8   9009 Jack Dempsey
Heavyweight          1922  623.7  10603 Bill Brennan
Heavyweight          1922  591.2  11326 Tommy Loughran
Heavyweight          1922  545.2  11303 Bartley Madden
Heavyweight          1922  501.9  10596 Fred Fulton
Heavyweight          1922  459.0  32006 Joe Beckett
Heavyweight          1922  435.9  11023 Sam Langford
Heavyweight          1922  420.9  11333 Martin Burke
Heavyweight          1922  410.2  11315 Jack Renault
Heavyweight          1922  407.4  13546 Charley Weinert

Heavyweight #1       1923 1505.9   9009 Jack Dempsey
Heavyweight          1923 1004.6  10592 Billy Miske
Heavyweight          1923  937.6  11254 Tommy Gibbons
Heavyweight          1923  850.2  11274 Jeff Smith
Heavyweight          1923  777.5  28688 Benny Valger
Heavyweight          1923  776.2  17615 Harry Wills
Heavyweight          1923  754.0  11315 Jack Renault
Heavyweight          1923  666.2  10604 Georges Carpentier
Heavyweight          1923  590.8  10607 Luis Angel Firpo
Heavyweight          1923  460.6  13546 Charley Weinert
Heavyweight          1923  421.5  47311 Mike Dundee
Heavyweight          1923  418.6  52315 Charley O'Connell
Heavyweight          1923  415.9  32006 Joe Beckett
Heavyweight          1923  383.0  11303 Bartley Madden
Heavyweight          1923  381.9  11310 Ted Jamieson

Heavyweight          1926 1853.9   9046 Gene Tunney
Heavyweight          1926 1395.6  10616 Jack Sharkey
Heavyweight          1926 1095.8  17615 Harry Wills
Heavyweight          1926  904.7  34181 Jim Maloney
Heavyweight          1926  757.7  17618 George Godfrey
Heavyweight          1926  679.0  11315 Jack Renault
Heavyweight          1926  573.8  12065 Pat McCarthy
Heavyweight          1926  551.9  11333 Martin Burke
Heavyweight          1926  518.1  10607 Luis Angel Firpo
Heavyweight          1926  503.5  13546 Charley Weinert
Heavyweight          1926  477.3  12118 Paulino Uzcudun
Heavyweight          1926  466.2  21838 Bud Gorman
Heavyweight          1926  428.1  67064 Dick Conlon
Heavyweight #14      1926  405.0   9009 Jack Dempsey
Heavyweight          1926  396.0  12051 Ad Stone

Heavyweight          1927 1766.2   9046 Gene Tunney
Heavyweight          1927  999.0  17618 George Godfrey
Heavyweight          1927  948.1  12063 Johnny Risko
Heavyweight          1927  918.9  12049 Jack Delaney
Heavyweight          1927  876.8  13554 Tom Heeney
Heavyweight          1927  860.7  10616 Jack Sharkey
Heavyweight #7       1927  824.8   9009 Jack Dempsey
Heavyweight          1927  593.0  17615 Harry Wills
Heavyweight          1927  487.4  17620 Big Boy Peterson
Heavyweight          1927  484.4  11300 Chuck Wiggins
Heavyweight          1927  483.8  13324 Larry Gains
Heavyweight          1927  477.7  12118 Paulino Uzcudun
Heavyweight          1927  474.8  11340 Jimmy Delaney
Heavyweight          1927  443.2  34181 Jim Maloney
Heavyweight          1927  411.7  25859 Harry Felix

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 17:43**

i have certainly had some doubts about dempseys true level for a couple of years since i posed myself the question. my conclusion though brings him back to being among the most dangerous heavies you could face. speed and power, awesome will to win, he has to be in any list of the great heavyweights of all time. to leave him out for some of the spurious reasons listed would be...folly!
i'm back with jack

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 18:08**

Jack Dempsey and Muhammad Ali, in their primes, would be a fight I would love to watch! I wouldn't want to bet on it, but, if I was forced to, I would have to bet on the Manassa Mauler. Both deserve a spot on any serious top 10 all time heavyweight list, in my opinion.

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 19:12**

HomicideHenry wrote: The facts are, Jack Dempsey probably never faced a genuine challenger until facing Gene Tunney, and by then Dempsey was too old to do anything anyways.

Every one of his challengers was considered a legitimate challenger.

HomicideHenry wrote:After he lost, he said he was doped before the fight. Bullshit.

I agree, unsubstantiated bullshit excuses like that don't carry any weight.

HomicideHenry wrote:Jess Willard wouldn't have made a decent sparring partner for the Klitschko's let alone being a formidable heavyweight.

That's why he was the top heavyweight in the world, and a unified world champion at the time?

HomicideHenry wrote:Billy Miske was on the downside and would die in a few years from Brights disease.

Miske was still regarded as highly as ever at that time and considered a very dangerous challenger.

HomicideHenry wrote:Tommy Gibbons was a light heavyweight.

So was Tunney, the guy you acknowledged was a genuine challenger. And beating Gibbons is the very win that made Tunney the genuine challenger you agree he was.

HomicideHenry wrote:Georges Carpentier was inactive for virtually five years and was a light heavyweight, getting beat by guys like Siki and Loughran rather easily.

Carpentier never lost to Siki or Loughran until after Dempsey beat him, and was the most highly regarded he ever was going into the Dempsey match.

HomicideHenry wrote:He flat out refused to fight Wills, and flat out refused to fight Harry Greb.

Greb was a middleweight - in other words, even smaller than a light-heavyweight, which you criticize Dempsey for fighting.

How is it that LHWs cannot be considered credible challengers for Dempsey, but middleweights can?

HomicideHenry wrote:Not to mention, also, that the so-called 'Greatest Fight First half of The Century' with Firpo was supposed to be a set up easy win for Dempsey, but Firpo didnt follow the script,

That works both ways. What about the fact that guys like Willard, Miske, and even Carpentier were supposed to be hard fights for Dempsey, and he broke from the script by destroying them easily?

HomicideHenry wrote:and rumors still to this day persist that Kearns had footage spliced so a long count controversy wouldnt ruin Dempsey's career.

What was that you said earlier about myths and bullshit?

The only valid criticism you've raised here is that he should've fought Wills, which no one really disputes anyway. Other than that, the rest of your post is filled with inaccuracies, wild speculations, and contradictions.

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 20:09**

Henry, I like the fact that your comin' in here and stirrin it up. Anyone can have an opinion and the more unusual the better. It appears to me that you've given the matter some thought, read a book or two, knocked back a fifth, and then stood up straight and just let loose on the crowd. You've got the makings of a good entertainer or politician.

My guess is that Collins appreciates both your vigilance, mental agility, depth of perception and capable syntax.

Me? well...not so much maybe. But like I say....I always appreciate a stirred pot. Keeps the stuff on the bottom from burnin'.

Posted: **25 Feb 2009, 21:03**

I'm pretty much in agreement with My 2 Sense. Most of the criticisms are invalid. Dempsey's title defenses were decent. Dempsey also was very impressive against some top contenders before he won the title.
Yes Jess Willard was one of the worst champions. However, it's doubtful many guys would have beat Willard that badly.
He does deserve to be criticized for not putting the title on the line for 3 years after these fights.
Dempsey had a great left hook, very good hand speed, and of course was ultra tenacious. He had no major weakness. If he wasn't one of the Top 10 heavyweights of alltime, he is very close to it.

Posted: **26 Feb 2009, 00:10**

BoxBuzz wrote:Henry, I like the fact that your comin' in here and stirrin it up. Anyone can have an opinion and the more unusual the better. It appears to me that you've given the matter some thought, read a book or two, knocked back a fifth, and then stood up straight and just let loose on the crowd. You've got the makings of a good entertainer or politician.

My guess is that Collins appreciates both your vigilance, mental agility, depth of perception and capable syntax.

Me? well...not so much maybe. But like I say....I always appreciate a stirred pot. Keeps the stuff on the bottom from burnin'.

Evidentially Jack Dempsey was just no good at all.

Is no one safe from the revisionistas?

Posted: **26 Feb 2009, 00:29**

Collins2000 wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:Henry, I like the fact that your comin' in here and stirrin it up. Anyone can have an opinion and the more unusual the better. It appears to me that you've given the matter some thought, read a book or two, knocked back a fifth, and then stood up straight and just let loose on the crowd. You've got the makings of a good entertainer or politician.

My guess is that Collins appreciates both your vigilance, mental agility, depth of perception and capable syntax.

Me? well...not so much maybe. But like I say....I always appreciate a stirred pot. Keeps the stuff on the bottom from burnin'.
Evidentially Jack Dempsey was just no good at all.

Is no one safe from the revisionistas?

Apparently only Harry Greb - who, interestingly enough, no one living today has ever seen in action. Hmmm . . .

Tommy Burns has actually benefited from the "revisionistas." Boxing folks from the early 1900s - many of whom considered Burns an also-ran - would be shocked to discover the high regard many on this forum have for Tommy.

Posted: **26 Feb 2009, 10:17**

The saddest chapter of this is the upgrade of Primo Carnera. Perhaps when they did the computer fights back in the sixties it should have ended up as Carnera vs Burns for all the marbles.

Then we'd really know who the best of the best really were.

Oops....did I forget to include the great Bruce Seldon in this conversation? Please forgive. But to be fair....they had no idea back in the sixties when they did those matchups that the future would be producing a champion possessing such remarkable qualities as Bruce.

Posted: **26 Feb 2009, 17:39**

BoxBuzz wrote:The saddest chapter of this is the upgrade of Primo Carnera. Perhaps when they did the computer fights back in the sixties it should have ended up as Carnera vs Burns for all the marbles.

Then we'd really know who the best of the best really were.

Oops....did I forget to include the great Bruce Seldon in this conversation? Please forgive. But to be fair....they had no idea back in the sixties when they did those matchups that the future would be producing a champion possessing such remarkable qualities as Bruce.

I completly disagree. Carnera was unfairly lambasted in his time. He's not an overlooked great but he was far from the bum the American press loved to paint him as. He beat a lot of very good fighters ON THE LEVEL.

Posted: **26 Feb 2009, 18:24**

....Not to mention a few NOT on the level. Which is why he is, was and shall ever be a bum. How do you resolve that small problem and how can we disassociate him from that portion of his career? It's just too cloudy.

But I suppose Carnera, Nixon, Or Mussolini weren't all that bad if you can just get past the corruption. And I know there is a case that can be made for this line of thinking for all three of them. (Trains running on time, Visiting China...Beating Jack Sharkey...uh or did he? etc etc)

I just don't have any money left in my 401K to buy any of those stories.

Posted: **26 Feb 2009, 23:28**

BoxBuzz wrote:....Not to mention a few NOT on the level. Which is why he is, was and shall ever be a bum. How do you resolve that small problem and how can we disassociate him from that portion of his career? It's just too cloudy.

But I suppose Carnera, Nixon, Or Mussolini weren't all that bad if you can just get past the corruption. And I know there is a case that can be made for this line of thinking for all three of them. (Trains running on time, Visiting China...Beating Jack Sharkey...uh or did he? etc etc)

I just don't have any money left in my 401K to buy any of those stories.

So b/c his management fixed some fights of his early in his career, he's a bum? That's pretty shady logic.

His manager Leon See later disclosed what fights of Primos were fixed and which were not (which makes sense when you look at the timeline). Carnera legit beat the likes of Uzucudun, Loughran, Lasky, Shaeff, AND Sharkey. That's a solid resume. If his backers were so powerful as to force the HW champion of the world to take a dive, why couldn't they save Primo from a universally derided decision vs Poreda? And where were they in the first Sharkey fight? And since they obviously couldn't stop Baer from knocking Primo down 11 times, how did Carnera actually make it a competitive fight in the middle rounds if he was just a bum?

Carnera was a very good fighter and would've beaten the likes of Valuev,McCline,Whitaker, Grant,Thompson etc.

Posted: **27 Feb 2009, 09:31**

I'll go along with good in the general scheme of things. But not championship material. And so you are going to buy the confessions of what was real and what was not real? Once a confession is needed it's very difficult to assess the "damage control" aspects. Just too cloudy to ever know the truth.

Posted: **27 Feb 2009, 20:52**

BoxBuzz wrote:I'll go along with good in the general scheme of things. But not championship material. And so you are going to buy the confessions of what was real and what was not real? Once a confession is needed it's very difficult to assess the "damage control" aspects. Just too cloudy to ever know the truth.

If See already confessed to aranging fixed fights, YEARS later, what reason would he have to "hide" other fixes? He might upset somebody who is now in his 70s? Give me a break. Carnera's underworld backers were not strong enough to fix the bigger fights of Carnera's career. Just knowing about the era in boxing and its history tells you that.

He was championship calibre b/c he beat the champion of the world in a fair fight. Period.

BoxRec

Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend

Re: Jack Dempsey: The Truth of The Legend