View Full Version : New Jack Dempsey Bout found

Mike DeLisa
11-28-2006, 02:15 AM
Here is a big one guys --

Jack Dempsey's record has for years shown a series of 1-round kayos in early 1919. I had never really given much thought to these until I came across a clip provied to me by top researcher Jack Kincaid.

In Kincaid's Dempsey file, I read of the Jim Hickey fight. It seems those early 1919 bouts were part of a barnstorming tour whereby Dempsey offered $1000 to anyone who could stay three rouns with him.

Only a few guys got into the ring with Dempsey. On the nights that no challenger stepped forward, Dempsey exhibited with his sparring partners (ie Terry Kellar).

Well, it occured to me that perhaps a bout or two might have been overlooked during this barnstorming tour, so I set out to review day by day the papers from January 1919. Kincaid had focused on the NY papers so I looked to papers outside NY.

In the Bridgeport paper for January 16 my hunch paid off! A new Dempsey bout!! Seems Dempsey started his "worldwide" tour at a theater in Trenton New Jersey. Dempsey scored a one-round kayo over Jim Maguire. Here are the clips I found:



This kayo also adds to Dempsey's record, moving him up a notch on the 1-round kayo list:


On Jan 25 Dempsey pulled out of the tour in anticpation of signing for a Feb 10 "Title fight" with Billy Miske. When that bout fell through, Dempsey returned to his barnstorming, finally signing to meet Willard.

In due course this will be added to Dempsey's record on the CBZ and will be included in or forthcoming Encyclopedia with Bert Sugar (June 2007, Lyons Press)

Roberto Aqui
11-28-2006, 07:11 AM
Was that a legit fight though? Sounds like his opponent was more a toughman contestant than fighter. Of course the line gets a little blurry with many fights against the obscure names on any period fighter's record of the day.

I thought Dempsey did the same thing after retirement with his 100 4rd exhibition tour across America in the mid 30s, but those bouts were not counted on his record even though one was a loss to a legit period heavy, King Levinsky.

11-28-2006, 11:31 AM
seems more of an exhibition.

11-28-2006, 12:18 PM
in fact--all those fights on that tour --should be exhitions--because none --maybe one--actuall had a pro fight before that appearance with dempsey..from 31-32 --all those fellows were pros--except for one or two--all could be found on box rec--what do you guys think???

Mike DeLisa
11-28-2006, 12:46 PM
The fights on the barnstorming tour have been accepted by historians as valid bouts for Dempsey.

These were real fights -- all of the guys who opposed him were low-level pros after the $1000. The $1000 posting was real and that edges it over the top. Look in Boxrec and you will see each is notated as "barnstorming tour" -- I think no other than Luckett Davis added that note.

So, in sum, the tou of 1919 resulted in actual bouts according to most researchers and I agree. So the CBZ will be adding this new bout.

11-28-2006, 01:15 PM
Well, the guys that were fought on barnstorming tours are no worse than most of the daisies that modern heavyweights today fill they records up with, and the modern heavyweights get to count those bouts against the weakest of opponents, so why shouldn't Dempsey and others be able to count the same kind.

Any bout where money is offered, or exchanged is considered a legit, professional bout regardless of how qualified the opposition is!

11-28-2006, 01:40 PM
got the point guys.anyhow --on the 31 tour all were pros also and maybe some where kos and kndowns were scored--they were not just sparring sessions and soderman researched that often dempsey helped his opponents after a knock down and often held his hand in variuos bouts ,once he showed who was boss---because as you know--had anyone of the pros knocked dempsey down--instant fame--and dempsey spoke of this in sodermans article for ibro "the second coming of dempsey" something to that effect--dan has the article--very well researched by soderman--as usual.

11-28-2006, 02:18 PM
Its got to be counted, for if Dempsey got koed, Im sure it would have been big news. There was "prize" money involved also. Wow the researchers never fail to amaze!

11-28-2006, 05:53 PM
Any fight footage of Jack Dempsey's less then one round knock out of Fred Fulton surface yet?
They fight was so short Im surprised in has not yet turned up in a film vault somewhere in France or South America on one of those old news-reels that they use to show in movie houses.

mike casey
11-29-2006, 12:10 PM
Well done, Mike DeLisa. Chalk another one up for the Mauler!

11-29-2006, 04:52 PM
Congrats Mike! Good job, guys like you keep the sports alive.

11-29-2006, 09:22 PM
these articles together seem not to jibe. one says mcguire was 200lbs and 6 foot. the other said he towered over dempsey...who was 6'1''.

11-30-2006, 04:51 PM
These bouts were exhibitions and advertised as such, they should not go on Dempseys professional record.

Mike DeLisa
11-30-2006, 09:30 PM
They absolutely wre NOT advertised as exhibitions. Certain nights on the tour Dempsey did fight exhibitions, but these were fights as described above. They have appeared on Dempsey's record since it was compiled.

There are good arguments as to why it should not be included -- Luckett Davis would not include it for example -- but that has nothing to do with how they were advertised or treated by record keepers until today.

If you want to explain why they should not be included, fine, since that is the reason I am posting this stuff here rather than just printing on the CBZ's records or our upcoming 2007 Encyclopedia -- it is sort of a peer review.

12-01-2006, 05:50 PM
Well, as I stated before...any fight where a prize of money is on the table it is to be considered a professional bout. No money is offered for a win in exhibitions and no money is awarded in amateur bouts! The bout certainly should go into his record!!!

If the disagreement is because of quality of opponent then I would tell the person making such a claim to look at the records of all heavyweights from history and look at the competition that all heavyweights faced at one time, or another which is considered professional...hell today's heavyweights have records absoultely loaded with flourists and fast-food workers and the heavyweights of today count those bouts in they're record...why should it be any different for Dempsey...especially when there is proof that verifies it.

mike casey
12-02-2006, 07:47 AM
Agreed - end of argument.

12-02-2006, 11:58 AM
Money is awarded to fighters in boxing booth bouts but nobody includes those in professional records and rightly so. Case closed end of argument. The fact is that this tour was billed as an exhibition tour with the bouts being engaged in as exhibition bouts for the purpose of keeping Dempsey busy while the Willard fight was arranged.

12-02-2006, 01:40 PM
i have the highest respect to all-- do to the money exchanged it should be included--but to be consisederd with the fast food fighters others have fought--so long as dempsey or tohers didnt feast on guys like that- its ok here. ill just give dempsey more credit years later for beating up on wright,roper,crthister,retzalff and allthose younger pros--but the gloves were usually 10 or above.

12-02-2006, 09:45 PM
these articles together seem not to jibe. one says mcguire was 200lbs and 6 foot. the other said he towered over dempsey...who was 6'1''.

Yes, that is perplexing. Perhaps the first article was in error, intending to state "6 foot 6" or "well over 6 feet"...? It's a bit late in the day to solve this conundrum, though, almost 88 years having ellapsed.

Mike DeLisa
12-02-2006, 11:54 PM
Bodyblow -- please post your evidence that these were billed as "exhibtions"

12-03-2006, 12:54 AM
>>>please post your evidence that these were billed as "exhibtions"<<<

That's what I would like to see!!!

12-03-2006, 10:24 AM
Interesting debate here. I am not erring on either side. I may be somewhat naive to this era but wouldnt a legit bout be a sanctioned bout by thats state or national commission? If not the line between booth/exhibition/pro fight might become a grey area.

Mike DeLisa
12-03-2006, 05:24 PM
In 1918 the Hurley Law legalized boxing matches to ND up to 8 rounds. No commission sanction was needed.

Dempsey offered $1000 to anyone who could go three rounds with him -- no decision would be issued because none was authorized. Several "fighters" accepted the challenge. Other nights he fought "exhibition" bouts.

He pulled out of the tour after claiming a sprained ankle, but really was negotiating to sign for a Feb 10 bout with Billy Miske for the title, which assumed Willard had retired. On Feb 9, Willard and Dempsey signed to fight at sometime after May 26, 1919, when Ohio was to go dry (little thing like the Volstead Act, remember).

Here is what I ahve right now for Dempsey for 1919

--- Dempsey Tours with a musical review

Jan 16 Jack McGuire Trenton, NJ KO 1
20 Jan Big Jack Hickey Harrisburg, PA KO 1
23 Jan Kid Harris Reading, PA KO 1
29 Jan Kid Henry Easton, PA KO 1
Feb 10 Signs to fight Willard
13 Feb Eddie Smith Altoona, PA KO 1
Feb 15 Opponent x2 York, PA Exh
Feb 23 -- "The AMericas", wash dc
1 Mar Terry Kellar Washington, DC Exh 3
(Benefit for Walter Reed Hospital)
2 Apr Tony Drake New Haven, CT KO 1
Apr Terry Kellar Detroit, MI Exh 6
4 Jul Jess Willard Toledo, OH TKO 3
(Won World Heavyweight Title)
24 Aug One-Round Harrison St. Louis, MO Exh 4

12-06-2006, 06:22 PM
Funny, I seem to remember a couple of years ago a guy was on this forum with pretty rock solid proof that Mickey Walkers record was incorrect and that his final bout of 1919 should not be a win but a KO loss in Philadelphia. He even quoted the newspaper article of the fight when no one else could quote an article of Walkers win yet hardly a single person on here accepted it and it has yet to be entered correctly into his record on here. They all said, your the one bringing new bouts to an old, established record, prove it. So I now someone is trying to enter Dempseys Exhibition KOs into an old established from a year when everyone was watching Dempsey and no record keepers entered those bouts, not even Dempsey, YET I NEED TO PROVE IT??? This smacks just a bit as hero worship if not favoritism toward these fighters. I remember back in the sixties when a similar situation occured and some young would-be record keepers lobbied Ring Magazine trying to get Dempsey's later exhibition KOs from the late 20s and early 30s entered into his record as legit bouts. This idea was thankfully vetoed by more knowledgeable well established historians. I can only hope that same wisdom will prevail here.

Mike DeLisa
12-06-2006, 08:06 PM
These bouts of Dempsey's have been included in his record since at least 1919. Every edition of the RING Record Book that I have (including Herb Goldman's well-respected edition of 1986-1987) includes them as actual fights. What I did was find the first bout of a series of bouts Dempsey fought in 1919. That fight has been overlooked for 87 years.

Beyond that, I don't mind arguments against this being called an exhibition -- Luckett Davis for one would NOT include the bout -- but if you are going to object by stating they were "advertised as exhibitions" that begs for proof since we have reviewed the newspapers and find that to be untrue.

You dont NEED to prove anything to me. I have another month or two to make up my mind on the early 1919 fights before the Encyclopedia I am writing with Bert Sugar goes to press for June publication (Lyon's Press). Thisforum is meant as a sort of peer review for such items.

As far as my status as a researcher I make no claims whatsoever -- my work speaks for itself.

12-06-2006, 11:40 PM
Mike - are you including exhibitions listed as such in the record book? If so, I have uncovered a number of Jim Jeffries exhibition bouts.

12-07-2006, 12:42 AM
If I remember correctly, the Walker situation was markedly different because there already was confirmation of Mickey's having fought in another city on the same day his alleged KO loss took place. And this first bout (a win) had been listed in his record from the very night that it took place.
Personally, I have no opinion on this supposed "new" Dempsey win (not that my opinion would make a flea's ass of difference, in any case). If there is some proof available that the event was advertised as an exhibition prior to its occurring, that would settle the matter in my view. If no such proof exists, no matter how inexperienced Jack's opponent might have been, a fight is a fight. Champion Patterson fought Rademacher in Pete's first bout, after all. PeteLeo.

Mike DeLisa
12-07-2006, 02:06 AM
raylawpc -- I am not including exhibitions in the book with Bert because os size limitations -- we have approx. 2000 boxers listed.

But, I am working on a heavyweight-only book where I will print exhibitons and other details for all heavyweight champs and certain contenders. Check out or example our Dempsey Record -- http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/dempsey.htm

and the Jeffries record (mstly by Tracy Callis)

I will also be including, where possible amateur bouts -- when including amateur and exhibitions, for example, my Ali record runs like 13 pages!

Joe Louis, likewise ahs over 100 exhibitions and most of his amateur bouts.

Simply stated, if you have anything to add, I'd love to share reserach.

Also, and this goes for ANY fighter, if anyone on this board has a particiular fighter they want to see -- or want to see my draft record prior to publication, please email me and I will send my record and notes for that fighter.

For members of IBRO, note I already printed the Joe Louis record in IBRO and will be submitting the Ali record for the issue after December.

Mike DeLisa
12-07-2006, 02:18 AM
PS there are a few more exhibitions for Dempsey I left out of above --

Apr 4 John Lester Johnson Schenectady, NY EX 4
Apr 7 Battling Hickey Syracuse, NY EX KO 1
Apr 7 Spike Sullivan Syracuse, NY EX KO 1

and I have identified the boxers he fought on Sep 4, 1931:

Sep 4...Jimmy Byrnes.....Eugene, OR...Exh 4
Sep 4...Jack Baxter..... Eugene, OR... Exh 1
Sep 4...Henry Glanz..... Eugene, OR... Exh 1

12-07-2006, 04:07 PM
Actually PeteLeo, as I recall the person who notified the board of Walkers loss posted that Walkers win, given in his record as being on the same day, was NOT backed up by either of the Newark papers. The loss was supported by more than one Philadelphia paper. In addition to that no one ever replied with any account of Walker having fought and won a bout on that date ANYWHERE. I watched that thread closely and its a shame it no longer exists after the board crashed some time ago. It had some good information and I dont think that poster is around anymore.

12-07-2006, 06:16 PM
bodyblow, what's your point? That Mike shouldn't include the Dempsey KO in his and Mr. Sugar's encyclopedia because somebody else's Mickey Walker research was not accepted on this board some months/years ago?

12-07-2006, 06:39 PM
Are you sure? From what I remember, there was no doubt about the "first" Walker bout of the day (the win), and the bone of contention was that in those earlier days it would have been both inconvenient and unusual for Mickey to make the trek to another city for a second bout in the same twelve hour period.
After all, the recordbook says that Jimmy Wilde beat both "Billy Papke" and "Jack Sharkey," but it's a pretty safe bet that neither guy was the more famous middleweight or heavyweight champ.
And, I thought the poster was He Grant. Could be wrong, though. PeteLeo.

12-07-2006, 08:53 PM
Actually a train ride from Newark to Philadelphia and back wouldnt have been very long even in those days. I cant remember who the poster was but I remember he posted that neither Newark paper had a description of Walkers fight for that day (odd) and he made the point that Newark had pretty good fight coverage in those days for their area leaving the Walker bout in doubt.

My point, Rawly, isnt that it shouldnt be entered based on anything even remotedly having to do with Walkers record but that this was a highly publicised publicity tour devised to keep Dempseys name in the papers while he awaited a shot at the title, make money, and NOT risk his standing professionally. Its true that some of these local papers billed these fights as professional contests and made a point to say things like "and you can be sure these fights are all real fights, not the exhibition variety." This was done all the time back then for promotional purposes. You sell more tickets for a real fight than you do an exhibition. You can argue that Dempseys standing would have suffered had he lost the contests but he wasnt going to lose, thats the point. Half the time he was fighting sparring partners under his or Kearn's employ, and half the time he was fighting the equivelant of your local postmaster with a wink and a nudge. He was never in any danger of losing the bouts they were not physical contests and they werent professional contests, they were devised to exhibit Dempsey as a logical contender for the crown in an age before television and before he started appearing regularly on the screen for mass consumption. Im not insulting anyone Im just trying to point out that its easy to get carried away when excited about something of this sort but you have to keep it in the proper context and that means not just reading the report from the local papers but what everyone is and was saying before, during, and after the "bout" or tour at that time. Did some of these bouts filter into Dempsey's professional record, absolutely, BUT they shouldnt have and there is a reason why many of them didnt. This tour was set and planned ahead of time with set circuit (much like a vaudville circuit if not actually following one of the vaudville circuits. He didnt simply fight an exhibition here, a pro bout there, an exhibition here, another pro bout there, these were all advertised in advance as exhibitions during planning stages of this event before it ever took off. What local promoters did was manipulate the public for personal gain. It was called "ballyhoo" in those days. Now, if people want to criticize me for not quoting verbatim all of the articles Ive read in regards to this era with citations, so be it. Its your book, your going to publish it however you see fit and thats your right. BUT as a matter of peer review I would urge you to take a step back and look at the big picture even if it means digging up some more dusty archival material. You wont be chasing shadows.

P.S. Im surprised you mention Herb Goldmans book when working on a book with Bert Sugar, those two dont exactly see eye to eye and much of that distaste is wrought directly out of Goldmans book and the fact that he has an interesting way of writing revisionist history when it comes to creating titles for fighters that they didnt own or that didnt exist when they were active. I certainly wouldnt hold him up as a shining example of anything other than revisionism.

12-08-2006, 02:40 AM
The sad fact is when you have an event listed and advertised as a real fight as opposed to an exhibition and both guys get paid, what you have is a real fight. Degree of difficulty doesn't enter into the equation. Tyson was never going to lose to Marvis Frazier (I can recall no other match in which so many predictions of "one-round KO" proved out), but it stands as a real fight. If Manny Pacquiao signed up his dentist as his next opponent and found a place with an incompetent commission (or no commission) to stage the farce, it would still be a fight. Certain of the lighter-weight "champs" of the Eighties actually defended against first-timers with the blessings of the Alphabet Boys. So, unless there's some sound evidence that this particular Dempsey bout was carried out under non-pro conditions (the guys wore headgear, Kearns rang the bell at arbitrary times, Dempsey refused to hit the designated punching bag above/below the neck, or something like that), what you have is a real fight, if not MUCH of one. If the set-up guy had somehow knocked out Jack, I'm sure there would be plenty of Dempsey haters (and they are legion) making this exact argument.
As for the Walker question, it seems strange to me that at no other time in his recorded career did Mickey fight two fights on the same day. In glancing over the record we are provided with, I can find no evidence of a "two-fer" on the same day (though, granted, it was just a glance). He did perform from time to time within two or three days of a previous bout. Train ride or not, I would imagine that lining up two non-tournament bouts for the same afternoon and evening would be a pretty questionable tactic, given that the fighter would have no way of knowing what condition he would be in following the initial match. I've heard of the fellow (was it King Levinsky?) who fought three main events on the same day, but that was a rarity probably undertaken for its sheer uniqueness, and I believe all three fights were in NYC, weren't they?
Which Walker fight was in question? Maybe cross-checking the record of his generally accepted opponent (the losing one) will add -- or detract -- some weight from the claim. As I said before, you can find famous names in the records of an almost unending collection old-time fighters (come on, Jimmy Wilde knocking out Billy Papke?). I mean, jezze, just look at how many "Mickey Walkers" BoxRec has in its files.

Mike DeLisa
12-08-2006, 09:27 AM
Actually the story of the "three times in one day" has been proven false and just a made-up story by old "Dumb Dan" Parker.

12-08-2006, 09:56 AM
I agree with Pete 90% regarding Dempsey (I only disagree with the part of both guys getting paid; the opponents only got paid if they went the distance, as I understand it.) I am sure it had the feel of a real fight to the poor smuck who got his head blitzed by that Dempsey left hook.

Jack Munroe launched his career on the fact that he went the distance with an out-of shape Jim Jeffries in one of these affairs. Likewise, if any of these guys had stayed the distance with Dempsey, I'm sure there would be no debate whether it was a real fight.

12-08-2006, 12:19 PM
Actually a train ride from Newark to Philadelphia and back wouldnt have been very long even in those days...

Actually, it was much easier and faster to cummute between cities and towns in the NY-NJ-PA region one hundred years ago, before they systematically dismantled the superb intra- and inter-urban railroad system.

Mike DeLisa
12-08-2006, 02:22 PM


12-08-2006, 02:58 PM
The Walker bout was discover by Steve Compton (a.k.a) Klompton. The Philadelphia bout was confirmed (the KO loss), with the Newark bout having no confirmation.

The reason many rejected it, was that Walker quit in the fight. Many of the posters on this board, I won't name names, but there are a few in this thread, that discounted the bout flat out because they couldn't imagine an all-time great like Walker quiting.

Now we come to a new Dempsey bout and the same habit of many people to think these records are cast in stone comes to the front.

12-08-2006, 06:54 PM
Didnt both Tyson and Sanders get paid for their recent exhibition? should that be another bout on Tysons record? Payment has nothing to do with the question.

As for the Walker bout, there may be a hundred Mickey Walkers listed on boxrec but how many were just starting out in 1919 fighting on undercards, listed as being from Elizabeth, N.J. etc etc. When you combine this with the fact that there seems to be no confirmation of Walkers win that day its a pretty convincing argument that Mickey Walker should have a win erased from his record and loss added for that day and the only argument Ive seen to the contrary is based solely on hero worship. This is all beside the point because this is about Dempsey and not Walker.

12-08-2006, 09:25 PM
With all due respect, bodyblow, then why did you bring up Mickey Walker in message # 24?

Other than your unsubstantiated claim that these Dempsey fights were mere exhibitions, you have submitted nothing to prove that they were, indeed, exhibitions. Mike has supplied the actual articles, which indicate that they were forfeit contests, and deserve placement on Dempsey's record.

12-09-2006, 01:57 AM
Yes, fighters CAN be paid for exhibitions (and generally are, I would suppose), but if neither guy gets a dime for getting in the ring and swapping headshots, I would lean toward the event being either a non-paid, non-regulated exhibition or a simple one-on-one rivalry being settled in one of the more basic of forms.
Again turning to the Walker matter (which really has next to no connection with the Dempsey discussion, since there's no argument that the man we all know as Jack "the Heavyweight" Dempsey was in the ring), I must ask again WHICH fight is the poster referring to? Names and dates? I remember the thread but not the particulars. If the generally recognized bout is included in the record of the man he allegedly beat, then the weight shifts rather dramatically, doesn't it? And if the "loser's" record shows no such encounter, then the weight shifts in the other direction. As for the "Mickey Walker" who supposedly lost on the same day (again, I'm inclined towards not believing that Walker fought two fights in the same time period), hell, guys, the adoption of another's identity happens to this very day. If Mickey were making some waves in NJ around this time (whenever "this time" was), it's hardly a stretch of the imagination to envision a promoter securing the services of a traveling opponent and advertising him as the "Big Noise" from Elizabeth for a boost at the box office. Did Walker himself ever address this bout? As far as I know, he never tried to doctor his early record in any other case, including the emabarrassing one round blowout by Phil Delmont in his eighth match, so what would make this loss so special as to be swept under the rug and replaced by a "mythological" win elsewhere on the same night?
And, yes, I am one of those "should be ashamed of himself" Doubting Thomases who finds it difficult to believe that Mickey Walker, who officially lost one bout by KO in his first NINETY fights, would have sat on his stool rather than go hellbent for leather like he did in every other match during that stretch. I could be wrong, of course, so if you have more evidence, let it fly. PeteLeo.

12-10-2006, 06:48 PM
As to "established records," the only "established records" in my opinion are those that have appeared in the IBRO Journals and as is the case with pretty much every single record from the Dempsey era and most other era’s...there are no established records...most every record is incomplete in some way...there are no "established records," unless you think Ring Record Book and the records within it’s pages are gospel, which the records of fighters that appeared in the All-Time Ring record books of 1941 to 1944 was simply records that were copied from earlier record books such as Andrews, Everlast, Post, Police Gazette, etc…there were actually little research done to the all-time RRB’s, yet Nat Fleischer still tried to claim the records as his and no one else’s.

As to this new Dempsey bout…it has nothing to do with hero worship, or trying to add more knockouts, or wins to Dempsey's record. What would the argument be if the bout had been a loss...that someone is overly bias against Dempsey and trying to deflate his reputation? It's entirely about accuracy and correct historical data that had been for years, often incorrect and in many cases, just simply made up fiction...that is what one can find in a lot of those supposed "established records" from the past...inaccuracy and incorrect data.

The best, most accurate records that are currently available is the records that have appeared in the IBRO Journals and of course, currently the best record book that has been published to date was the 1986-87 Ring Record Book…and of course thanks to top researchers like Mike, Matt, Ric, Luckett and several others the Boxrec database has some excellent records…then there are the records here in the CBZ database which Tracy is over…even the best of the records in all of these places can be incomplete and that is often the case, especially with early records. New bouts are often found to records that are believed to be complete…those spoken of “established records.”

Just a quick example, which is just one record...Beau Jack...well the "established record" for Beau Jack lists his professional boxing career as starting in Holyoke, MA and his first three bouts taking place in Holyoke, but I looked into his early career a few years ago and guess what…his professional career did not start in Holyoke, MA…like nearly ever single article that I had ever read about Beau Jack stated…it started in Aiken, SC…just a couple of miles up the road from Augusta, GA. In fact, I found five of his first bouts that took place in Aiken, SC, not Holyoke as the “established records” would state and there are still likely between 5 and 15 early bouts from Aiken and Augusta that have not been recorded yet and that just messes up the “established record” for Beau Jack…messes up, or no…it really makes it better and more accurate than before. Now were those bouts added due to hero worship in order to give Beau Jack more wins, or was it to accurately correct the beginning of his career and add new found data to an “established record” that had not been researched very thoroughly at all…I say that it is to build a more accurate and correct record for a fighter instead of relying on the “established record” which in more instances than not is incorrect to start with…and the exact same thing can be stated of Mike finding the Dempsey bout…it’s certainly not to build Dempsey up…Dempsey doesn’t need any help to build him up…and as I said before about quality of opposition…well…take a look at the first 20, or 25 bouts of Nicolay Valuev…or look at all the bouts in the resume of Butterbean, or better yet…look at the early record of George Foreman, or the record of Wladimir Klitschko…or look at the record of pretty much all top fighters…there are opponents who couldn’t fight they’re way out of a paper bag, yet those bouts are not counted as sparring exhibitions. Unless someone can provide some kind of actual proof which actually states that it was a sparring exhibition, which I really don’t expect to see, then the bout should be added for what it is stated to be!!!!

Furthermore, I have yet to see anything that lists the bout as an exhibition…bodyblow certainly has not put any kind of factual evidence to back his claim…other than talking about Mickey Walker, which has nothing to do with the Dempsey bout!!!

Mike…As to the old Levinsky fighting three times in one day…you meant "Dumb Dan" Morgan, instead of Parker…

Didn’t you send in some of Dan Parker’s columns for the IBRO Journal, or was it Damon Runyon articles?

Mike DeLisa
12-19-2006, 02:19 AM
Barry --

yes I meant Morgan of course, not Dan Parker, the sportswriter. I printed a stack of Runyon articles in IBRO.

By the way, re "3 times in one day" at different venues -- check out the new IBRO and Kid Beebe's claim of four times in one day in NYC and Brooklyn in 1906 -- I'll have to see if Jack Kincaid has anything on that one!

12-23-2006, 09:08 AM
Mike---Did you get my last e-mail about the heavyweight book?

Mike DeLisa
12-23-2006, 06:34 PM
Barry -- NO! Please email me at mdelisa@gmail.com--!

I am working on the proposal and wanted your input -- I want to finish the proposal and samples by 1/4/2006

02-03-2007, 04:03 PM
It may have been an exhibition bout,but sounds like Dempsey was in a fighting mood.
BTW,is there a listing of all the known filmed Jack Dempsey bouts,especially when he toured with the Sells-Floto circus in the 1920's?,
that one pic showed him with some huge Michelin Man type of gloves.

02-07-2007, 05:36 PM
Actually according to the book A FLAME OF PURE FIRE by Roger Kahn,he states the Jack Dempsey did not do exhibition bouts with town locals ,while touring with the Sells-Floto circus but rather lecutured about his fight with Jess Willard and then(lightly)sparred with Big Bill Tate,not really hitting each other hard.

Mr E
02-09-2007, 02:23 PM
It's absurd to accuse Boxrec of pro-Dempsey anything.

2 fights on Dempsey's resume have long appeared 'fishy': the 1st Flynn fight (KO by 1) and the 3rd Morris fight (KO 1). Boxrec makes a big deal about challenging the Morris bout, as it does about several other purported 'dives' with a lot less evidence to back it than Dempsey-Flynn I (for example, Corbett-McCoy), yet Boxrec includes no commentary to alert the uninitiated to the dubious nature of Flynn bout. Does that sound like pro-Dempsey record-keeping? Sounds closer to anti-Dempsey bias, if you ask me.

Also, as I understand it from Tracy Callis, the 8 surviving newspaper reports of Dempsey-Miske I run 4 votes for Dempsey, 1 vote for Miske, 3 even. Sounds to me like Dempsey probably held a slight edge, but Boxrec undertakes to call the fight a 'draw.' In my view, that fight should remain a "no contest," given the uncertainty, but if you have to make a call you need to give it to the Mauler. The 1 Miske vote was probably from a Twin Cities paper, too, I'll betcha.

The John Lester Johnson fight, too, they call a draw, yet some very different views of that fight have been expressed. Damon Runyon and John Lester himself (in an interview he gave while working as a Hollywood extra in the 40s) both ceded the fight to the Mauler. IMO, that fight should remain a "no contest," too, but my instinct is that Dempsey probably deserved the nod.

In any case, there sure as heck is no favortism being directed TOWARD Dempsey in Boxrec. [Plus, geez louise, the put him @ like no. 19 or 20 in their all-time rankings, don't they?]

02-09-2007, 02:46 PM
As with most records in the BoxRec database, Dempsey's is an accumulation of many Editors' contributions: including, in no particular order, Luckett Davis, Mike DeLisa, Matt Tegen, Wouter, Deepak, Joseph, me, and others. Many of these folks you know here. There is no bias one way or the other. There are only so many of us, and tons of information to contribute to the database. (You'd be surprised at the amount of "new" bouts and new information added daily to the records and sister boxing encyclopedia.) We add what we know, based upon what we have. Finally, the all-time rankings should be taken as entertainment only--particularly with respect to old-timers, whose opponents' records are dismally incomplete. When more and more bouts are added to Dempsey's opponents' records, for example, his ranking may rise accordingly. That's just the way the computer's calculations work.

Mr E
02-09-2007, 06:05 PM
As with most records in the BoxRec database, Dempsey's is an accumulation of many Editors' contributions: including, in no particular order, Luckett Davis, Mike DeLisa, Matt Tegen, Wouter, Deepak, Joseph, me, and others. Many of these folks you know here. There is no bias one way or the other. There are only so many of us, and tons of information to contribute to the database. (You'd be surprised at the amount of "new" bouts and new information added daily to the records and sister boxing encyclopedia.) We add what we know, based upon what we have. Finally, the all-time rankings should be taken as entertainment only--particularly with respect to old-timers, whose opponents' records are dismally incomplete. When more and more bouts are added to Dempsey's opponents' records, for example, his ranking may rise accordingly. That's just the way the computer's calculations work.

You know what? That's a fair statement. I may have come off a little too strongly in revealing my own very strong bias against the liberal assignment of actual decisions in "no decision" bouts.

But I do think Boxrec should at least include a reference that many question the legitimacy of Dempsey-Flynn I if it's going to include similar references in connection with other fights (again, Dempsey-Morris III, Corbett-McCoy (which I don't even believe), etc., etc.).

02-09-2007, 11:29 PM
as far as the first flyn fight --that was a dive--even flynn basically thought so. the morris thing was covered by sorces--while some in the audience yelled fake-others up front--could see the left hook that almost killed morris.end of paragraph.

02-09-2007, 11:34 PM
also -the promoter down in new orleands who saw what happened --immediately offered up alot of money for willard to fight dempsey. rickard--out bid him.

Mike DeLisa
02-10-2007, 04:39 PM

You will notice that the bouts on the CBZ do not include those results -- the CBZ does keep track of which newspapers reported what in particular bout but we do not beleive they should be included. (reasons to be elaborated later)

02-17-2007, 10:09 AM
Eric, as a BoxRec editor you can post any comment you want with respect to results and commentary given. I have done this on many occassions.


02-17-2007, 06:14 PM
I remember reading in the book about Dempsey by Roger Kahn,that the first time that Dempsey went to New York City with his manager Jack Price during the Spring of 1916,they took an evelope of newspap er clippings with them.
However in those days most papers out West published about once a week,so they probably didnt stick around town to wait for any article to be published so they could clip it out.