Jump to content

Talk:Jack Dempsey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Encyclopedic content

[edit]

There are too many irrelevant digressions about 'little known facts', he is a boxer who didn't really shine till after the war results so I let just concentrate on his formative experiences in the early life section. I suppose it is ok to give results if you want to add them in a more encyclopedic phrasing.Overagainst (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Not paper. I agree with LHM. Your concept of relevancy is not the standard. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page was blanked, maybe some think there is nothing to talk about. I don't decide, but you are going to have to discuss the article. Sourced is not the issue, the article is full of digressions and unencyclopedic phrasing. (Like the asides in parentheses.) It is also convoluted and too difficult to follow. Ultra fast reverts and an empty talk page on a big name article makes me suspect that some people think they set the standard.Overagainst (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The talkpage wasn't "blanked", it was archived, as per the usual practice. LHMask me a question 21:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We welcome discussion. We want to build a quality encyclopedia. This is a collaborative effort, and we want to work together to achieve our ultimate goal. I would suggest that you try working the article one smaller piece at a time. We can then try to come to a WP:Consensus on that issue, and move along to the next one. That's my suggestion. I hope we can use that as a plan. You could start with whatever it is on your agenda.
If we simply treat this all wholesale — deleting large blocks of content — I predict the discussion will become positional. We will argue, but not consider and resolve. We need to read and comprehend. Hear and listen, so to speak.
We should be trying to fix the problem, not fix the blame.
That is my gentle suggestion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The talkpage wasn't "blanked", it was archived, as per the usual practice. LHMask me a question".
I have never seen that done. Ever. The article should give certain facts about Dempsey applying for a draft exemption and marrying a prostitute. Those are facts. Opinion that he deliberately threw a fight can't be presented as authoritative. And the languge throughout needs to be more encyclopedic. Take a look at what I was doing, and i think you may find some things worth keeping.Overagainst (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've been around since 2010 and you've never seen a talkpage archived? Wow. Anyway, it happens all the time. Previous discussions are still linked at the above-left on this very page. As for your changes, perhaps try making one small- or medium-sized change, that doesn't remove swaths of sourced content. That will allow others to take a close look at what you're doing, and better understand it. Huge changes that remove large portions of sourced material rarely stand. LHMask me a question 22:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have seen it done in that way, probably because a blank talk page could give people the idea that there is nothing to talk about. Given the very fast response by a number of editors, maybe they do think that.Overagainst (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you have seen--or not seen--that's the way it's almost always done. A bot usually takes care of the archiving. As for your sweeping removals of sourced content, you need to explain what you are trying to do here so we can all discuss it and see where consensus lies. LHMask me a question 21:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Clerical note) I have set up automated archiving which will leave a few threads on this talk page. This should forgo any future implications of impropriety regarding the archiving.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "sourced content" is fine if it rates a mention, such as the results in boxing records and what ringside reporting actually said they saw. The article says "Fireman Jim Flynn, the only boxer ever to beat Dempsey by a knockout when Dempsey lost to him in the first round (although many boxing historians, including Monte Cox, believe the fight was a "fix"),[12]" That is sourced, but it's not clear why Cox and company's opinion rates more than weight than the knock out of Dempsey. And it is pretty well accepted he was far from scintillating well into his professional career, as when he was thrashed by Lester Johnson in Harlem, suffering cracked ribs and two black eyes .Overagainst (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptive Willard quote, brass knuckles, long count

[edit]

If any long quote from Willard is to be given prominence, it should be the one most representative of what he thought about the fight. Fact is, Willard was quite clear it was "gangsterism" that defeated him. He was still saying that decades later, he said it felt like a knuckleduster and a glove couldn't have been that hard. (see The Free Lance-Star - Mar 23, 1948.). If an account of his injuries is to be given it should be an actual ringside report. The ones I have seem say that 20 seconds into the 2nd round, right eye was completely closed and the area around it was so swollen it protruded far out beyond his face, the right side (and only the right side) of Willards face was had multiple cuts "fountains of blood" that played around the ring and doused Dempsey in blood. Syracuse NY Daily Journal 1919 . the well known journalist Grantland Rice described "fountains of gore". It really will not do to have some obscure person quoted that Willard was as right as rain. And there is a book by an experienced boxing cornerman and MD that says the injuries on his face [1] look like bone fractures, more consistant with being hit with a ball pein hammer than a boxing glove . (My edit " According to boxing doctor Ferdie Pacheco a still photograph appears to show a type of swelling on the face of Willard that is consistent with bone fractures caused by a metal object with a small surface area.").

Also "Another discrepancy was, when Tunney knocked Dempsey down, the referee started the count immediately, not waiting for Tunney to move to a neutral corner.[26] Because of the controversial nature of the fight, it remains known in history as the fight of "the Long Count." POV, I don't known where the first discrepancy is supposed to be, as Dempsey disregarded the referee's instructions. Tunney beat the count that the referee made, and it is the referee's count and not the time on the canvas while the opponent is holding up the count by disregarding referee's instruction which matters. Referee Mills Lane discussed the issue of when a count starts in Pacheco's book. The count over Dempsey was standard practice, not any kind of discrepancy.Overagainst (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your source for the "boxing cornerman and MD" saying a photograph of Willard looked like "a type of swelling" that was "consistent with bone fractures" is nothing more than a fan blog--in other words, unreliable. That may be true, and it may not, but you'll have to find better sourcing to include it. I haven't looked up the other sources yet. LHMask me a question 20:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the Rice article you linked (you provided two links to the same article), I believe you are engaging in improper WP:SYNTHESIS. Rice never once accused Dempsey of wearing loaded gloves in that article. Given the concerns with (A) your sourcing, and (B) your interpreting Grantland Rice's words to mean something they do not, your proposed changes should not be made--at least not yet. Find better sources, word the material in a neutral way, and then we might have something.
My sources are fine. The article by Rice I linked appeared in major newspapers. Rice was a top sports journalist who was actually there ringside. He didn't say Willard had been cheated, Rice said that on the right side of Willard's face were several cuts that sprayed blood, and the area around his right cheekbone was massively swollen. So something along those lines is what the article should be saying. It certainly should not be ignoring the ringside report to quote obscure sources who claim Willard was fine the next day.
It is Ferdy Pacheco's book that is the source for Pacheco's opinion that some marks on Willards face were not consistent with contact with a boxing glove and looked more like blood from small bone fractures inflicted by a etal object. It is only an opinion, and that should be made clear, but given his qualifications and experience his views are well worth mentioning. The injuries have always been the main reason for suggestion Willard had been hit with something harder than a boxing glove. By the way, there is too much in the article in rebuttal of Kearns's allegation (which was that Dempsey didn't know he had doctored gloves).
Soon after the fight, Willard began saying he had been beaten by "gangsterism" and Dempsey had used something illegal. The 40's newspaper shows Willard continued saying that for the rest of his life whenever he was asked. The article is misrepresenting what Willard said about the fight. That Willard always insisted he had been been hit with something like brass knuckes does not mean its true, but that was what he said and that is how the article should quote him.
I have no objection to the evidence against Dempsey cheating being given equal weight (I was the one who put it in that he can be seen pushing and holding). By my way of thinking the issue is not as one sided as the current article implies. I think there is no way to know what really happened, and the article should not suggest otherwise. Overagainst (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Willard's change of heart later can certainly be mentioned, but giving equal weight to wild (possibly sour grapes) accusations of "gangsterism"? No. LHMask me a question 14:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The right side of Willard's face was decribed as spurting blood and looking like a something out of a butchers shop. That is what people who were at the fight said. The quote "Dempsey is a remarkable hitter. It was the first time that I had ever been knocked off my feet. I have sent many birds home in the same bruised condition that I am in, and now I know how they felt. I sincerely wish Dempsey all the luck possible and hope that he garnishes all the riches that comes with the championship. I have had my fling with the title. I was champion for four years and I assure you that they'll never have to give a benefit for me. I have invested the money I have made." That could only have been made right after the fight, so Willard was quite chipper considering . The article is saying he didn't even have a black eye. Not credible. He was very badly hurt on one side of his face and there is no proof he didn't have fractures.Overagainst (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reread the last sentence you just wrote. There doesn't have to be "proof he didn't have fractures." There has to be proof he did. The burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. LHMask me a question 17:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. They are all long dead so BLP for accusations is not a burden of proof. As long as there is a reliable source that someone said something, we can mention that they said it. Ringside reporting of the fight described the right side of Willards face as a 'fountain of blood' with massive swelling around the cheekbone area. It is notable and should also be mentioned with equal weight that some people who saw Willard July 7, later said he only had a cut lip and didn't even have a black eye.Overagainst (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a burden of proof for things to be put into an article, whether BLP or non-BLP, wouldn't you agree? LHMask me a question 19:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is from this newspaper article. Note that it says Willard spat a tooth out while on his stool just before quitting, so he did lose teeth. Other points of interest include that spectators were yelling at the referee to stop the fight and when Willard spoke to reporters afterwards he did so with a towel draped over his head to hide his injuries. Willard himself said it was the a left hook in the first round that really hurt him. Promoter Tex Rickard was known for paying off journalists, and after Dempsey became champion he spent a lot of time trying to promote Dempsey as a clean living model American, so you have to be sceptical about the subsequent claims that Willard did not even have a black eye. Rickard was a child molester by the way. Overagainst (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rickard was a child molester? And you really think that's a relevant argument? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rickard spent thousands on paying people off, he owned the journalists, he was co founder of Ring magizine with that same Nat Fleischer, who is being quoted as a (presumably independent) authority. Hence what was said about the fight afterwards by these people may well be very tainted opinion. "A day after the fight, the New York Times interviewed Willard at length, and speaking would have been very hard if his jaw really had been multiply fractured." That is pure (unsourced) opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Either take it out of make it clear whose opinion it is please. And it was Willards cheekbone that was most often said to have been multiply fractured.
None of the contemporaneously published newpaper accounts of the fight suggest anything but an extrordinary amount of damage on the right side of Willards face, where there was said to have been bleeding from at least one cut. He was also said to have spat a tooth out. That and Willard's claim sonn after the fight that he had been defeated by "gangsterism" constitute one side of the controversy. It is fine to summarise contemporaneously published newpaper accounts of the fight and Willard's subsequent accusation that Dempsey had used something like brass knuckles, as well as the rejoinders by the Dempsey camp. As this is not proven either way, as far as I know, there is no independent or established scientific view. (The Kearns alegation was not the original or main one, and can be passed over quickly). Just give both sides, without trying to come down on one as side. It is fine to add opinion if you attribute it to the person who advanced that opinion and give their views weight appropriate to their prominence in the controversy.Overagainst (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are doing a lot of WP:SYNTH to get from "spat a tooth out" and "extraordinary amount of damage" to "Dempsey probably cheated." Personally, I wish Willard had been a better fighter, and had beaten Dempsey--Willard's a fellow Kansan, after all. But he wasn't, and he didn't. And giving undue weight to the "Dempsey cheated" view in that section isn't acceptable, as it has been basically refuted, and is given comparatively little credence in serious boxing circles. It's a conspiracy theory--albeit one that has had enough coverage to be mentioned in the article--and nothing more. LHMask me a question 09:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the ref, so this is academic, but in a book I read about 30 years ago one British boxing writer recalled interviewing Willard when he was an old man. (It was not the Harry Carpenter thing people talk about because I clearly remember Willard was talking about cement gloves, not a bolt.) Willard had invited the writer to palpitate his head and the tissue gave way, there was a large dent in the side of his noggin. The writer just said he was a bitter old man.
Willard said one thing, the Dempsey camp said the other. It was a straight dispute and remains that. You would not call that Willard accusation against Dempsey a conspiracy theory unless you were arguing Dempsey's side. You can read that Kearns was supposed to have taught Dempsey the fabled 'Corkscrew hook'. There was also, for whatever reason, lies printed. For example from the Willard article "The swelling over his left eye had entirely disappeared and the only mark he bore was a slight discoloration over the eye and a cut lip." (Willard starts for Home," Kansas City Times, July 8, 1919, p.10)." That can't be true, because Willard had at least one nasty cut on his right cheekbone.
Nothing about the 42 year old Willard verses Fripo and the 29 year old Dempsey verses Fripo suggest that a 42 year old Willard was not completely comparable to a 29 years old Dempsey in defensive capability and ability to take a punch. Dempsey got seventeen seconds to recover when knocked out the ring by Fripo. Anyway boxers have suffered similar fractures from big punchers (Chuck Wepner's busted cheekbone and nose plus 50 stitches against Sonny Liston) so nothing would be proved either way, Dempsey could have done it fair and square in theory, but we will never know.
I am simply pointing out that, although it is certain that there was no damage whatever to the left side of his face, the fractures which may have been on the right side of the face of Willard are a matter of dispute and, although would never know it from reading Wikipedia,, the assertion by Willard that there were such fractures is by no means refuted. He only seemed to get really hurt in 90 seconds of the first round, all on damage visible was on the right hand side of his face. He wasn't fighting Henry Cooper you know. Photographs show real damage before the blood started, and the ringside accounts are unanimous there was a lot of swelling and bleeding by the end. The man himself said he had suffered injuries, said it was like being hit with brass knuckles, and called it 'gangsterism'. It is true that most boxing historians have dismissed the claim, but that is just an opinion.Overagainst (talk)

Our coverage can go no further than the reliable sources take us. And much of what you wrote above is, while interesting, unacceptable in the context of Wikipedia, given that it constitutes synthesis. We have mentioned the claims Willard made later in life. We have mentioned that Kearns tried to gin up rumors about it, that were wholly unsubstantiated. I'm just not sure what you want us to do here. Do you really want the theory that Dempsey cheated (which is not widely accepted amongst boxing historians, to be given equal weight to the widely accepted view that, while rumors circulated, there has never been one shred of actual evidence presented that Dempsey cheated? The fact that rumors circulated is mentioned and discussed in the article. In my view, that's really as far as we can go. LHMask me a question 20:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting speculation and synthesis. But I am inclined to agree with LHM 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, contemporaneous ringside professional reporting all says the right side of Willard's face was massively swollen and spurting blood. All the best sources say he had fractures. The New York Times Obit of Dempsey said Willard "had been down seven times, and one left hook had broken his cheekbone in 13 places". You can't say that those are not at least as good and reliable sources for the reports of Willard's fracture injuries as the reports from the Toad Suck Times that he suffered none (especially as those no-fractures sources say Willard didn't lose any teeth, which we now know to be almost certainly false as this archive newspaper article collection proves the ringside reporting had him spit a tooth out).
Second, it was easy to access all newspapers' archives for 1919 when I first researched the article a few years ago, I wish I had got more of those references down and saved in the article because you can't get them now (google news archives were something else back then) I can tell you that there is at least one newspaper from 1919 quoting Willard publically calling Dempsey and his management crooks and complaining that Dempsey had used something. I would need to go to a reference library to try at getting at those archives now. But you don't have to take my word, Wiilard had been openly saying there was something fishy for decades before Kearns or anyone else did, the 1949 Chicago tribune article quoting Willard proves it.
In my opinion Willard's contention (it was his) that Dempsey cheated is an unproven and unrefuted hypothesis, but it should be given more weight in the article than it currently has And it should be made clear that Willard was the first one to propound it.Overagainst (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need WP:RS for these bold assertions. Nobody is disparaging your recollection, but . . . 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporaneous reporting in black and white I have twice linked to said Willard lost a tooth, so the article needs to give that proper weight. Willard lost at least one tooth according to the journalists covering the fight from 10 feet away. The article has a very prominent quote of Willard acknowledging defeat, which he did give, but it's wrong to give the reader the impression that Willard never ever suggested Dempsey used anything like brass knuckles until after Kearns said so in 1964: it's not true. You don't have to rely on me, that 1949 Chicago tribune article quoting Willard I have linked to shows it isn't true. Now is it fair to the reader to give the opposite impression? And I would note that Willard was not some anon on the internet talking about dead people, he could have been sued. Overagainst (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the claims Willard later made accusing Dempsey of cheating up to right after his initial quote praising Dempsey as a fighter. This should ameliorate your concern about the article giving the impression that Willard didn't express his own "suspicions" until after Kearns spread his rumors. That's really as far as I think this article needs to go in addressing these rumors. LHMask me a question 18:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree with LHM. Synthesis and conclusions drawn from same have no place in Wikipedia editing. If that's what content is based on, it needs to be removed and kept out of any article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IMPARTIAL "Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article."
Most people don't think Willard was correct in what he said about Dempsey using something with the effect of brass knuckles, but the article ought to make clear that Willard was the one who said Dempsey cheated. Kearns's plaster of paris allegation is very much a side issue in the scheme of things, and there is too much about it and against it in the current article.
Whether or not there was more than a little truth in the accusations that Dempsey was a pimp who turned out girls (as his biographer admitted) Dempsey was married to a prostitute and that is a fact. He wasn't drafted because he applied for an exemption from the army and that is a fact too.Overagainst (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jack Dempsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes section not needed

[edit]

I think the footnotes section can be merged into the references. Quotes of what is summarized/paraphrased in the article content are not necessary, they don't seem to add anything. MrBill3 (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jack Dempsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it says he was buried in New York. Thats not true. His sister Ann told me his ashes were spread out at the base of an apple tree at his nieces house in California. I grew up across the street from Jacks sister, brother in law, and their son. 2601:248:5282:35D0:75AD:55D2:FAD7:BBF5 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kearns had bet their entire purse that Dempsey would win by first round knockout---not exactly a sucker's bet,since Dempsey had knocked out three leading contenders in a row in the first round. Kearns knew the fight wasn't over, but he hustled Dempsey out of the ring hoping to w in on a bluff. Ring officials didn't fall for it and ordered them back into the ring or be disqualified.

Kearns also wrote in his memoirs that he bribed several small town fire departments to go back and forth with sirens blaring near Willard's training camp,ensuring he'd get no sleep on the night before the fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.11 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Dempsey&oldid=1234707068"