A Peculiar Offer By Dempsey: Winner Take All vs. Wills

[Dempsey-Louis]

Racist or not racist?

I know I might be opening up an old wound here but I ran across a 1912 article regarding a fight between Mike "Young" Cashman and Benny Franklin - the newspaper referred to Franklin as a "Harlemite" - dog whistle racism or just colorful commentary? (No pun intended.)

Oh! Cashman in two (KO)

[Anthony342]

Without seeing the article, I would have to choose the latter.

[Dempsey-Louis]

Without seeing the article, I would have to choose the latter.

I can post the article if you like but it wouldn't enlighten, there's nothing else except a blow by blow account of the fight.

I just posted it because of the squabble the other guys were having over the use of the word 'negro.'

Hell we don't even know if Franklin, or for that matter, Cashman were black.

[travestyny]

Racist or not racist?

I know I might be opening up an old wound here but I ran across a 1912 article regarding a fight between Mike "Young" Cashman and Benny Franklin - the newspaper referred to Franklin as a "Harlemite" - dog whistle racism or just colorful commentary? (No pun intended.)

Oh! Cashman in two (KO)

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Was he from New York? The only time I've seen the word "harlemite" is when someone was from Harlem, NYC.

[Zaroku]

For anyone who wishes to comment on this, please, in accordance with the sticky on this forum, let's keep it civil. We are here merely to discuss the facts.

Here is an article from the New York Times dated August 19th, 1926.

Here are the highlights:
1. Dempsey says that he has wanted to fight Wills since 1919, and that Wills is the only fighter that he has wanted to face.

2. Dempsey says that he has never drawn the color-line.

3. Dempsey says that he has made great efforts to make the Wills fight, but no promoter would step up.

4. Dempsey says that he will now stop being silent on the issue and demand the fight be made, or demand to know why not.

5. Dempsey issues a winner take all challenge to Wills, if Wills can match his sum of $150,000.

First of all, one poster here has mentioned that the above information is so unbelievable that this article is a complete and utter fabrication on the part of the New York Times. In my opinion, that is ludicrous. This article can still be found at the NYTImes website today, and there are 2 additional articles relating to it, which I will post. One is regarding Wills manager stating that Dempsey is bluffing with this offer, complete with quotations from Harry Wills himself, and the other is Dempsey following up saying that this is no bluff.

So I would first like to know, what logical proof is there that this article is a fabrication?

Second, how much do you believe these statements by Dempsey. We have to admit that there are lots of fabrications here.

1. Hard to believe that Dempsey has wanted to fight Wills and only Wills since 1919. You would think the fight would have happened by the time of this article. He does blame it on promoters, but we know he broke a valid contract according to a US court to get out of fighting Wills. This is verifiable fact.

2. He did indeed draw the color line on two occasions. This is also verifiable fact and there are direct quotations from him to prove it.

3. Again, if Dempsey went through such great efforts to make the Wills fight, why did he break a valid contract to fight him?

4. After nearly 8 years, why is Dempsey suddenly saying that he will demand this fight or demand to know why it can't happen. Even saying that he will take it to Tijuana if need be. Why did it take 8 years for him to "make a stand"?

5. Is it believable that Dempsey is willing to face Wills for at most $300,000 and as little as $0????? Hasn't he always claimed that the fight didn't happen because of financial issues? Didn't he leave a $300,000 guaranteed check (only to be an initial payment) on the table in Chicago when he broke the contract to face Wills?

According to Wills side in the article that I will post later here, Dempsey should be well aware that a winner take all bout would be ILLEGAL everywhere because it would make the contest into a prize fight, which was illegal at the time. Also, side bets on fights were illegal, according to Wills' manager.



So who believes that the New York Times made up quotations from Dempsey, Mullins, and Wills regarding this statement? And Who believes that these statements by Dempsey are all truthful and believable?

You gotta react a man who goes all in... peace brother...

[travestyny]

You gotta react a man who goes all in... peace brother...

Problem is that it was a complete bluff. Smoke and mirrors. Outright lie. All of the above! lol.

Peace, bro!

[Zaroku]

Problem is that it was a complete bluff. Smoke and mirrors. Outright lie. All of the above! lol.

Peace, bro!

Your word is gold... peace...

[Dempsey-Louis]

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Was he from New York? The only time I've seen the word "harlemite" is when someone was from Harlem, NYC.

You made me go to BoxRec and look. The kid Franklin (the ('Harlemite') is listed as hailing from Baltimore, BUT the news article has him identified as a resident of Harlem.

I guess that makes Anthony's assertion correct; likely just colorful commentary. I should have posted him the article.

Sorry Anthony!

[travestyny]

You made me go to BoxRec and look. The kid Franklin (the ('Harlemite') is listed as hailing from Baltimore, BUT the news article has him identified as a resident of Harlem.

I guess that makes Anthony's assertion correct; likely just colorful commentary. I should have posted him the article.

Sorry Anthony!

I looked as well. He fought a hell of a lot in NY, and a few times in Harlem specifically, so I thought maybe it was at least his 2nd home.

Should I dare ask what you thought Harlemite meant? Lol.

[travestyny]

Why then did the bounced check become a court issue if it was a new contract? (1933); I thought Fitzsimmons tried to sell the original contract to the Chicago Club because he couldn't raise the money; which again free's Dempsey from any obligation, his contract was with Fitzsimmons.

The bounced check NEVER became a court issue. Dempsey attempted to make it a court issue because it was his excuse to try to get out of the contract. The court saw right through it, and said it had NOTHING to do with him breaching the contract. I've already showed you the part of the case that said that.

Certain agreements previously entered into by the defendant with one Floyd Fitzsimmons for a Dempsey-Wills boxing match were declared to be void and of no force and effect.

Again, the bounced check was September 1925. Dempsey signed the new contract in March 1926. He then also later claimed that he was to receive $125,000 at the signing, but tell me, who signs a contract and accepts $10 as consideration on the very day that they are stiffed out of $125,000? It's clear that Dempsey and his legal team were full of shlt. Dempsey was not freed of obligation, as I've shown repeatedly. The injunction was granted because he was found to have breached the contract, and even in appeal, the court said that judgement should be found for the Chicago Coliseum Club, but for nominal damages.

I am beginning to believe that these guys were gangsters and Dempsey realized he was being played.

Come on, dude. He would have been allowed to keep the $300,000 that they guaranteed by August 5th, 1926, no matter what, as stipulated by the contract that he signed. If the fight comes off, he makes more than he would have made with Tunney. If the fight doesn't, he has the $300,000 plus the Tunney money.

As far as an injunction goes: the Court issued the injunction exactly for the reason that nothing yet had been found. - There has to be a trial before the Court can 'find' anything. Besides like I have said before, it was a Chicago judge (at the height of Chicago's corruption,) a bought judge trying to protect Chicago's gangster interests, and no surprise it went no where because it had no legal standing.

Dude, with all due respect, you are completely pulling this info. from thin air.

1. The court did not issue the injunction because "nothing had been found." The court issued the injunction because it found that Dempsey breached the contract.

2. How are you going to assume that the judge was bought off????? That's a hell of a claim without any proof. Besides, this was NOT a Chicago judge that issued the injunction. The proceedings for the injunction took place in INDIANA because that's where they tracked down Dempsey and served him with the papers for the lawsuit. So no, it was NOT a Chicago judge!

3. It is NOT true that it went "nowhere." The injunction was granted and was NEVER lifted until it expired, which took place after the date of the proposed fight. Rickard actually was in negotiations for the fight to take place in Chicago, but he had to pull it from there because of the injunction. It was merely found that the injunction was in effect specifically for Chicago, and could not be effective in Philly where the Tunney fight took place. I've posted all of this information in my previous post, including where Rickard said if the contract was found valid, he would shift the fight from Chicago to another place. So it is not true that it had no legal standing. It simply did have legal standing, but in Chicago.

If they really had a case they would have brought it to federal court and then the injunction would have been able to stop the fight in Phily; but they didn't, because outside of Chicago's corrupt courts they couldn't get a hearing. (Later I believe Dempsey used 'diversity jurisdiction' to get the case moved into federal court (1933), where, without the support of a corrupt Chicago judge, it was dismissed as frivolous, right?)

FALSE. It wasn't "dismissed as frivolous." Again, the injunction proceedings took place in Indiana.

---edit-----
Then, it was a circuit court in Chicago that was to decide on other monetary damages. That court stated that the Chicago Coliseum Club should be granted certain damages, including the costs it accrued to gain the injunction.

This information was not true! I've found that the circuit court actually dismissed this case in its entirety, which was for $500,000, due to the promoter being unable to prove how much money it had lost. The court denied the promoter any money, and the appeal court ruled that this dismissal was improper and that the promoter WAS actually due nominal damages, but still not the damages for getting the injunction. The appeals court stated that judgement should have been for the promoter and NOT in favor of Dempsey, because some damages should have been granted instead of a complete dismissal.
----edit--------

Later on appeal, the decision of the circuit court was reversed and remanded. This was NOT a statement against the injunction, and it also was NOT a statement about whether Dempsey breached the contract. The court case as tried by the appeals court found that Dempsey CLEARLY breached the contract, and noted that the injunction was "IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT" at the time of the ruling.

The chancellor in the Indiana court entered his decree, which apparently is in full force and effect, and the defendant in violating the terms of that decree, after personal service, is answerable to that court for a violation of the injunctional order entered in said proceeding.

What it disagreed with was the damages that could be sought. It found that Dempsey would be liable for nominal damages as well as damages accrued from the time the contract was sighed to the time of the breach of the contract. The ruling even states specifically that the judgement should be for the plaintiff (the Chicago Coliseum Club) plainly!

Just because the court allowed Dempsey to get off light does NOT mean that he was not found to have breached the contract!

Under the evidence in the record in this proceeding there appears to have been a valid subsisting agreement between the plaintiff and Dempsey, in which Dempsey was to perform according to the terms of the agreement and which he refused to do, and the plaintiff, as a matter of law, was entitled at least to nominal damages. For this reason, if for no other, judgment should have been for the plaintiff.

After the clear breach of contract by the defendant, the plaintiff proceeded with this character of litigation at its own risk.

NO COURT HAS DENIED THAT HE BROKE THE CONTRACT! ALL OF THE COURTS STATED OUTRIGHT THAT HE DID BREAK THE CONTRACT!

You want to believe this was Dempsey ducking Wills, but it is obvious that Dempsey didn't (couldn't) trust Fitzsimmons or Chicago (the whole damn city); for pete's sake it was Chicago in 1926 one year before the Saint Valentine Massacre (the real one) went un-investigated.

Again, you are pulling this out of thin air! If he didn't trust Chicago, then why was he so happy when he thought he could have the Tunney fight in Chicago? If he didn't trust Fitzsimmons, why did he thank him for getting out of the way and allowing the Tunney fight to happen. I have documentation to support both of these! It had LITTLE to do with Fitzsimmons and NOTHING to do with Chicago.

This just wasn't about Dempsey ducking Wills; you want to believe that, then look at 1922, it's a better argument.

It was certainly about Dempsey ducking Wills. When you say you've wanted to fight a guy since 1919, and then you sign a contract, and a court of law says the contract is valid, and you do just about anything to get out of it, and when you can't, you simply run to another state to fight a different man...that's a duck. That's what happened and that is far stronger than what happened in '22.

I can even make the argument: if Dempsey really wanted to duck Wills, why sign anything at all?

This argument is like saying we can't say a runaway bride didn't want to marry the potential groom...because why would she have agreed in the first place, though she didn't show up to the altar. What was the answer she gave? (She said she didn't show up to the altar because of something that happened 6 months before they agreed to get married).

I can make the argument why didn't Dempsey take the $300,000 and get it on with Wills? He signed the contract and then changed his mind. But the question remains.

If a fighter signs a contract to fight, and then breaks the contract for NO VALID REASON, is that a duck? You've given a number of reasons for him breaking the contract, those being that it was corrupt Chicago and he was dealing with gangsters, which is pure speculation and not to be taken seriously since he was all set to fight Tunney in Chicago afterward. You also claimed he simply trusted Rickard more, but you never answered the question I had for you before:

Why wouldn't Dempsey take $300,000 on August 5th (which he could keep as per the contract no matter what) and wait for Wills, whom he stated is the ONLY man he wanted to fight since 1919, instead of breaking that contract and going into the Tunney match? Furthermore, he was to get MORE MONEY by fighting Wills at the most, and in the least, he gets the $300,000 AND the Tunney money. If any other boxers does this, that is simply a duck.

What this amounts to is Dempsey saying though Wills was the only man he ever wanted to fight since 1919, in 1926 he broke a valid contract that he signed to fight him because of something that happened 6 months BEFORE he even signed the contract.

This was a duck. There is no way around it.