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

[travestyny]

I know exactly what you are referring to. There is no need to repost the same long walls of text.

I think that's where you're confused to is the context of my quote. I'm defending my stance that Dempsey was a racist. Not from a point of view that that stuff never happened.

It doesn't matter if you said negro was at that time racist. It isn't my opinion that that was the racist term. It's a fact. I was a history major for a while in college and 2 of my professors addressed this issue separately. Both made it very clear that the term colored was the term that people who were not racist used and the term negro was the term that those who didn't like black folks used. Now I want to make it very clear that there is no room for disagreement here. It's settled history. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. That's the way things were back then.

....but.....then you're saying that Dempsey was a racist??


Those are his quotations. I thought it was your stance that Dempsey WASN'T a racist. In fact, this is the first time I've heard anyone claim Dempsey was a racist. Or I think you just typed that the wrong way:

What I did say was that Dempsey wasn't a racist.

I'm defending my stance that Dempsey was a racist.

Are you saying he was a racist or he wasn't? And if you are adamant that the use of the term "negro" was racist, how are you arguing that he wasn't a racist if he gave the above quotations.

That's what I'm not understanding.

[QueensburyRules]

--- Tyny dear, you say you sound like a broken record because you are.

Surely you know Tunney never fought a black guy as a pro, but was willing to fight Wills for the path to Dempsey. Wills lost his will for that fight, a sad end, but not dempsey's fault.

The end...

[travestyny]

--- Tyny dear, you say you sound like a broken record because you are.

Surely you know Tunney never fought a black guy as a pro, but was willing to fight Wills for the path to Dempsey. Wills lost his will for that fight, a sad end, but not dempsey's fault.

The end...

That may not have been Dempsey's fault. I wouldn't disagree.


But who is to blame for Dempsey breaking that contract?

You've responded a million times....but have ducked this EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Why?

[Dempsey-Louis]

I think that New York in general did seem to champion Wills quite a bit. Remember the incident that you mentioned in Madison Square Garden, which I've also read about, where they allowed Wills to be introduced and escorted to his back row seat by walking down to the front row past Dempsey, which caused the crowd to cheer him and eventually boo Dempsey. New York was definitely behind him!

And why not? I don't blame them for that as long as they are presenting the facts and not giving things spin. And I also agree with everything you've said.

But the issue that it seems no one wants to address is the contract that Dempsey signed and broke. To me, that stands out as a definitive time where one can say Dempsey ducked Wills. It may be true that Dempsey would have beaten Wills at this time, or it may not. That's why the fight. But it is clear to me that breaking that contract, especially when the promoter goes so far as to get an injunction, the courts state the contract was valid, and the promoter also gives proof of the money being present.....for Dempsey to break that contract after stating he wanted Wills and only Wills since 1919....that is a blatant duck. I'm sorry. There is no way around it.

However, this thread was not meant to be a comprehensive discussion about the Wills affair. The purpose was only about whether the information in the "Winner Take All" article was a fabrication by the New York Times, and whether the winner take all offer itself was legit.

After I read more articles on it, I found that there is certainly great proof that it was not legit, and I could have saved myself the trouble of discussing it had I read up more, but I still would have presented the info here to discuss anyway, so no biggie.


I am not, however, against talking about the comprehensive issue, though this thread wasn't meant to be that. As far as that goes, I reiterate, that Dempsey breaking that contract stands to me as the most clear evidence that, at least at that particular time, he did indeed duck Harry Wills. There is just no way around that.

No just the opposite -- what did you find out regarding the winner-take-all situation?

You think it would not have been legal, why?

I know that the Sullivan-Corbett fight was WTA and so was the second Sullivan-Ryan fight. (A week later Sullivan met with Ryan in MSG for a 'boxing exhibition' just to raise some cash for Paddy Ryan, since he got nothing out of their fight. That 'boxing exhibition' was stopped by the cops in the 1st round when it turned into a fight. Sullivan and Ryan couldn't control themselves and went at it and the cops jumped in.)

[travestyny]

No just the opposite -- what did you find out regarding the winner-take-all situation?

You think it would not have been legal, why?

I know that the Sullivan-Corbett fight was WTA and so was the second Sullivan-Ryan fight. (A week later Sullivan met with Ryan in MSG for a 'boxing exhibition' just to raise some cash for Paddy Ryan, since he got nothing out of their fight. That 'boxing exhibition' was stopped by the cops in the 1st round when it turned into a fight. Sullivan and Ryan couldn't control themselves and went at it and the cops jumped in.)

What is just the opposite...?

According to Wills manager, it was illegal. But that's not what convinced me that Dempsey was lying.

What convinced me was the Deputy Sheriff pulling up on Thomas Shaw and he admitting that Dempsey never gave him anything, after Dempsey twice claimed that he gave him six $25,000 drafts to be held for the Wills fight.

What was also crazy in that article is how the deputy pulled up on Dempsey's wife, pulled her out of a Rolls, and took it away.

[Dempsey-Louis]

What is just the opposite...?

According to Wills manager, it was illegal. But that's not what convinced me that Dempsey was lying.

What convinced me was the Deputy Sheriff pulling up on Thomas Shaw and he admitting that Dempsey never gave him anything, after Dempsey twice claimed that he gave him six $25,000 drafts to be held for the Wills fight.

What was also crazy in that article is how the deputy pulled up on Dempsey's wife, pulled her out of a Rolls, and took it away.

The opposite of a general discussion on Wills; I wanted you to tell me what you knew about it being illegal.

So lets go back to the general discussion on Dempsey ducking Wills.

The July 11th agreement (NYT 07/12/22) was not a contract. It was an agreement to negotiate and take bids. It was a trial balloon to see if the money and venue were there.

But you can see in the article that Doc Kearns is being disingenuous. Mullins wanted a 30 day limit on the biding, because he knew Kearns had no intention of taking any of the bids. Kearns refused the time limit and the date was left open (deliberately vague) pending bids.

Kearns had earlier floated the the absurd figure of "a $500,000 guarantee," a figure he knew no one would meet. And no one did and the fight disappeared.

Kearns never intended to take the fight; Kearns never intended to let Rickard promote Dempsey's next fight.

What Kearns really wanted was a fight outside of New York; away from Rickard. (That fight would be the fiasco in Shelby.)

[travestyny]

The opposite of a general discussion on Wills; I wanted you to tell me what you knew about it being illegal.

So lets go back to the general discussion on Dempsey ducking Wills.

The July 11th agreement (NYT 07/12/22) was not a contract. It was an agreement to negotiate and take bids. It was a trial balloon to see if the money and venue were there.

But you can see in the article that Doc Kearns is being disingenuous. Mullins wanted a 30 day limit on the biding, because he knew Kearns had no intention of taking any of the bids. Kearns refused the time limit and the date was left open (deliberately vague) pending bids.

Kearns had earlier floated the the absurd figure of "a $500,000 guarantee," a figure he knew no one would meet. And no one did and the fight disappeared.

Kearns never intended to take the fight; Kearns never intended to let Rickard promote Dempsey's next fight.

What Kearns really wanted was a fight outside of New York; away from Rickard. (That fight would be the fiasco in Shelby.)

Right. And I certainly would never say that Kearns wanted this fight. He definitely did not, and he would do anything to block it.

What percentage blame do you think Dempsey should reasonably assume for that? Keep in mind that he stated that Wills was the only fighter he wanted to face since 1919.

I know you feel the best chance for this fight happening was in '22. I feel it was in '26, though I agree that wouldn't have been the best time for these two to fight. It was clearly the best chance, though.

1. Kearns not involved.
2. A signed contract.
3. Promoters willing and showing the money.

That's what I was referring to when I mentioned the contract. Not back in '22.

[Dempsey-Louis]

Right. And I certainly would never say that Kearns wanted this fight. He definitely did not, and he would do anything to block it.

What percentage blame do you think Dempsey should reasonably assume for that? Keep in mind that he stated that Wills was the only fighter he wanted to face since 1919.

I know you feel the best chance for this fight happening was in '22. I feel it was in '26, though I agree that wouldn't have been the best time for these two to fight. It was clearly the best chance, though.

1. Kearns not involved.
2. A signed contract.
3. Promoters willing and showing the money.

That's what I was referring to when I mentioned the contract. Not back in '22.

Oh! I read your July 11th 1922 mention and thought that what you were referring to, so there was a second contract signed in '26?

Can you give me a NYTimes date for that? I would like to read it. Have only looked at a few articles from '26.

[travestyny]

Oh! I read your July 11th 1922 mention and thought that what you were referring to, so there was a second contract signed in '26?

Can you give me a NYTimes date for that? I would like to read it. Have only looked at a few articles from '26.

He signed the contract in March 1926. I'll see if I can find the article.


It's in reference to the court case I posted to you in the other thread.

[Dempsey-Louis]

He signed the contract in March 1926. I'll see if I can find the article.


It's in reference to the court case I posted to you in the other thread.

On March 7th there is an article mentioning a Floyd Fitzsimmons who claims to hold a contract for "Dempsey's and Will's services." Interesting! Need to know more about said contract.

Article says Dempsey confirmed the contract. But you have to remember back in '22 Dempsey got off the boat in New York, from London and announced he had signed a rematch for Carpentier next July. Kearns and Rickard had to explain to Dempsey he hadn't and that the fight wasn't going to happen. It didn't.

You want to understand Dempsey? Try thinking of Mike Tyson, his immaturity and business innocence, surrounded by Don King, Bill Clayton, and Bob Arum.

Dempsey was being tugged between, Kearns, Rickard, Tammany Hall (NYSAC), and the media. He was a babe in the wood. Place as much stock in anything Dempsey says as you would in anything Tyson might of said.

Kearns was smart, Rickard was smart, Dempsey was a nice guy.