was dempsey a bum?

[Willie Pep 229]

I know nothing about this situation but what I'm wondering is what does this have to do with him wanting Dempsey to fight Wills.

Shouldn't EVERYONE have wanted Dempsey to fight Wills? So what's the problem? That's what I don't understand. I asked you before what specifically did he do wrong regarding the Wills/Dempsey situation, but you didn't give a clear answer.




What Dempsey contract? I don't think he was concerned with the Dempsey contract in Chicago.


But please tell me, what did he do wrong regarding Dempsey/Wills? Was it wrong for him to push for Wills to get the fight after being the #1 contender for years and the public calling for it, or what?

What it has with him fighting Wills is this, (one more/last time):

I don't particularly think he/the commission was wrong for pushing for a Wills fight. I would have been pushing for a Wills fight. Wills earned his shot and should have gotten it. . . . never thought anything other than that, never said a word against it.

What I am trying to get you to see is that the NYSAC is not a go-to source if you are looking for unbiased information.

You appeal to authority too often, with quotes from 'big names' whom I believe you should see have a vested interest, . . . but you don't. Your failure to recognize their obvious bias annoys me!

What I showed you with Sammons was just how corrupt all those Irishmen really were; when Farley made his move to please Carnera's people (dare I say Italian gangsters) it caused enough disgust/stink that there came a call for a national governing body to be created and the fight didn't get title recognition, but boy he tried. He got caught looking dirty.

New York - Tammnny Hall - NYSAC = corruption.

Sure, I do think they got it right on Harry Wills, but they weren't doing it as some act of justice; they were going to make money off him/it.

So stop throwing their quotes around as if they actually hold some kind of historical value.

[travestyny]

What it has with him fighting Wills is this, (one more/last time):

I don't particularly think he/the commission was wrong for pushing for a Wills fight. I would have been pushing for a Wills fight. Wills earned his shot and should have gotten it. . . . never thought anything other than that, never said a word against it.

What I am trying to get you to see is that the NYSAC is not a go-to source if you are looking for unbiased information.

You appeal to authority too often, with quotes from 'big names' whom I believe you should see have a vested interest, . . . but you don't. Your failure to recognize their obvious bias annoys me!

You're being absolutely dishonest here. You know as well as anybody by now that my stance on this matter has nothing to do with Farley's opinion and everything to do with the fact that Dempsey broke a valid contract for this fight which was worth more than the Tunney fight and the promoter followed the contract to a T. I know you would love to claim that this Farley quote is a big part of my reasoning so you can rant about any kind of dirt you can pull up to besmirch him but it's not necessary. It's irrelevant to this matter, and it's also irrelevant because I can't even figure out what you are accusing Farley of doing.

What I showed you with Sammons was just how corrupt all those Irishmen really were; when Farley made his move to please Carnera's people (dare I say Italian gangsters) it caused enough disgust/stink that there came a call for a national governing body to be created and the fight didn't get title recognition, but boy he tried. He got caught looking dirty.

New York - Tammnny Hall - NYSAC = corruption.

Sure, I do think they got it right on Harry Wills, but they weren't doing it as some act of justice; they were going to make money off him/it.

So stop throwing their quotes around as if they actually hold some kind of historical value.

So your entire point is that according to you he's corrupt, so disregard everything he says. I bet you would never come to this same conclusion about Dempsey who has been involved in accusations of fixed fights and lying about never drawing the color line.

First of all, I've seen no evidence of any corruption. Honestly it just reads like some shlt fished up by you, but that's not even what's relevant.

You haven't even accused him of doing anything wrong IN THIS INSTANCE. You are just crying out, "Don't believe him!" with no consideration to what he is saying.

What exactly are you accusing Farley of doing wrong IN THIS INSTANCE? He wants the fight, and you've given numerous reasons he would want the fight, such as his own financial gain.

So please explain to me why a commissioner who wants a fight for his own gain would stand in the way of the fight happening. Or what his reasoning would be for, according to you, falsely blaming Dempsey for the fight not happening.

Remember. He wants the fight. And he's high up enough that he should know who exactly wants it, and who doesn't. Agreed? If this "corrupt bastard" encounters anyone who doesn't want the fight, I'm betting he's trying to lean on him, the "monster" that he is, to get the fight made. Right? So tell me why Dempsey is the victim of "the wolf," Mr. Farley, who wants this fight so badly.

Your accusation against him makes no sense. If anything, it shows more that Dempsey and his team are the only ones that didn't want this fight.

[Willie Pep 229]

You're being absolutely dishonest here. You know as well as anybody by now that my stance on this matter has nothing to do with Farley's opinion and everything to do with the fact that Dempsey broke a valid contract for this fight which was worth more than the Tunney fight and the promoter followed the contract to a T. I know you would love to claim that this Farley quote is a big part of my reasoning so you can rant about any kind of dirt you can pull up to besmirch him but it's not necessary. It's irrelevant to this matter, and it's also irrelevant because I can't even figure out what you are accusing Farley of doing.


So your entire point is that according to you he's corrupt, so disregard everything he says. I bet you would never come to this same conclusion about Dempsey who has been involved in accusations of fixed fights and lying about never drawing the color line.

First of all, I've seen no evidence of any corruption. Honestly it just reads like some shlt fished up by you, but that's not even what's relevant.

You haven't even accused him of doing anything wrong IN THIS INSTANCE. You are just crying out, "Don't believe him!" with no consideration to what he is saying.

What exactly are you accusing Farley of doing wrong IN THIS INSTANCE? He wants the fight, and you've given numerous reasons he would want the fight, such as his own financial gain.

So please explain to me why a commissioner who wants a fight for his own gain would stand in the way of the fight happening. Or what his reasoning would be for, according to you, falsely blaming Dempsey for the fight not happening.

Remember. He wants the fight. And he's high up enough that he should know who exactly wants it, and who doesn't. Agreed? If this "corrupt bastard" encounters anyone who doesn't want the fight, I'm betting he's trying to lean on him, the "monster" that he is, to get the fight made. Right? So tell me why Dempsey is the victim of "the wolf," Mr. Farley, who wants this fight so badly.

Your accusation against him makes no sense. If anything, it shows more that Dempsey and his team are the only ones that didn't want this fight.

NO no no, the guy who was known as "the wolf" was a Boston gangster named Joseph Di Carlo who the police characterized in 1934 as "Buffalo's public enemy number one."


Listen put aside the animosity for a moment, this work I am quoting is an excellent book you must read. Jeffry T. Sammons, Beyond the Ring. It is the kind of boxing history you and I like to debate, not that 'who can beat-up whom' Fantasy Fight nonsense that dominates this forum.

This work focuses on the socioeconomic and political aspects of the game. Well researched and footnoted, filled with pre and post fight events and implications.

You will enjoy the sections on Jack Johnson.

Please check out the author before you call it Voo-Doo.

[travestyny]

NO no no, the guy who was known as "the wolf" was a Boston gangster named Joseph Di Carlo who the police characterized in 1934 as "Buffalo's public enemy number one."


Listen put aside the animosity for a moment, this work I am quoting is an excellent book you must read. Jeffry T. Sammons, Beyond the Ring. It is the kind of boxing history you and I like to debate, not that 'who can beat-up whom' Fantasy Fight nonsense that dominates this forum.

This work focuses on the socioeconomic and political aspects of the game. Well researched and footnoted, filled with pre and post fight events and implications.

You will enjoy the sections on Jack Johnson.

Please check out the author before you call it Voo-Doo.

I've already checked it out to see what your whole Farley mess was about. I read it before I posted the last message to you. A dispute over contracts which they went to court over.

If that means corruption, then I don't want to know what you thought of Dempsey when they slapped that injunction on him.

I may wind up reading all of it since you've recommended it. Thanks for the suggestion, bro.


Question still remains tho: What are you accusing Farley of misrepresenting, and why would he?

[HOUDINI563]

Dempsey although he did get over excited in round 1 vs Willard was a short puncher. Dempsey was extremely quick with terrific punching power. As per Tunney Dempsey was a fine mixture of boxer and puncher. Watch the short arm inside attach vs Sharkey and the three short and legit body blows that led to the short hook that ended the bout. Or the punch sequence that nearly koed Tunney.

The one sequence I always like pointing out because it just phenomenal is the knockdown of Firpo just before the ko. Dempsey weaves, feints freezing Firpo for a split second and Dempsey throws two very short blows, textbook...right to the body and a left hook to the jaw. Blows me away every time I watch it.

Fleischer stated “you cannot compare Marciano to Dempsey except as a puncher”.

[travestyny]

The one sequence I always like pointing out because it just phenomenal is the knockdown of Firpo just before the ko. Dempsey weaves, feints freezing Firpo for a split second and Dempsey throws two very short blows, textbook...right to the body and a left hook to the jaw. Blows me away every time I watch it.

How are you going to write this and not set the video to the timestamp or at least tell us the time in the video.


We may all "fight" here, but we are still all boxing fans. I'm sure we'd all like to see the beauty that you are describing.

I suppose I could just look up Dempsey Firpo. Thanks for nothing :-|