Jack Dempsey's Refusal to Fight Joe Jeanette

[Willie Pep 229]

Perhaps. My purpose wasn't to get into the finer details of every one of those articles. They clearly show that there was a large amount of folks that believe Dempsey was avoiding the fight. I think that's pretty obvious.

yes of course i saw that and agree with it - i was just sharing some finer details

just some more details: i think, but not sure, but i think it was the reason why Wills-Firpo ended up in Thirty Boyle's Acres in New Jersey in 1924. i think Rickard was a little put off at the 'meager' gate he got out of Dempsy-Firpo '23. Dempsey cost him $500,000 that night and I suspect he knew a Wills' fight would cost even more, so the Polo Grounds was likely out

[travestyny]

As just a couple of examples of the dynamics of the period:

The summer of 1919 was horrendous for race riots. Widespread race riots.

[ame]//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Summer_of_1919[/ame]

The Tulsa incident of 1921 was horrific too.

[ame]//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot[/ame]

Racial tensions were boiling over in the 20’s and THIS was the environment where a mixed race heavyweight championship bout could be held with impunity? Rickard was attacked viciously for being the CAUSE of the race riots post Johnson Jeffries that left hundreds dead. All this very fresh on the minds of those who controlled the sport some 10-15 years later.

Why won't you even come close to mentioning what happened in '26?


Why????


No Rickard, No Kearns.....why did Dempsey pull out of the fight if the money was present and the contract was valid and fair???

Will you ever address this or keep ducking it?

[travestyny]

yes of course i saw that and agree with it - i was just sharing some finer details

just some more details: i think, but not sure, but i think it was the reason why Wills-Firpo ended up in Thirty Boyle's Acres in New Jersey in 1924. i think Rickard was a little put off at the 'meager' gate he got out of Dempsy-Firpo '23. Dempsey cost him $500,000 that night and I suspect he knew a Wills' fight would cost even more, so the Polo Grounds was likely out

One thing stood out to me in your last post. Why do you dismiss the negro press?

I think their synapsis of what happened was factual and spot on.

Has the boxing commission ever had to threaten Wills to try to make him contract with Dempsey? Has the commission ever had to order Wills to set a date for a bout with Dempsey? Has wills ever forfeited $50,000 just to keep from meeting Dempsey? Has any promoter ever had to get an injunction against Wills to try to make him live up to contract to box Dempsey? Has Wills ever pretended, as Dempsey has pretended, that the lack of financial inducement stood in the way?

These are all facts, no?

That's a whole lot of trying to get Dempsey to fight.



By the way, just want to say I appreciate you. You haven't dodged or ducked any questions here, and as such we can both respectfully agree to disagree on this subject.

[Willie Pep 229]

One thing stood out to me in your last post. Why do you dismiss the negro press?

I think their synapsis of what happened was factual and spot on.





These are all facts, no?

That's a whole lot of trying to get Dempsey to fight.



By the way, just want to say I appreciate you. You haven't dodged or ducked any questions here, and as such we can both respectfully agree to disagree on this subject.

I think it is obvious that the Black press was going to press for a Wills' fight under any circumstance. Not saying they were wrong. But as to the question "How popular would the fight have been?" their's is obviously a biased source and won't tell us if they could have filled Soldier Field. (Which I believe they could/would have.)

Level of 'demand' for the fight, is not an answer we can get from the Negro Press.

.

[travestyny]

I think it is obvious that the Black press was going to press for a Wills' fight under any circumstance. Not saying they were wrong. But as to the question "How popular would the fight have been?" their's is obviously a biased source and won't tell us if they could have filled Soldier Field. (Which I believe they could/would have.)

Level of 'demand' for the fight, is not an answer we can get from the Negro Press.

.

Oh yea, sure. I think it's clear that there was demand for the fight. We don't need the Negro press to tell us that.

[Marchegiano]

Again as much as you want to distort the history you are 100% wrong.

If you don’t like Fleischer, I don’t know why because his prime objective was to use his pen to integrate heavyweight boxing, look at the 2003 bio of Dempsey written by a true historian or look at the many articles and other bios written through the years the VAST majority concluding based upon the evidence that it was not a question of Dempsey ducking Wills.

The American culture via those that controlled boxing would not allow the bout to occur. Wills stated so HIMSELF. So to really understand the dynamics of that time you need to really understand American history and the history involving the color line. If you do not have this background you can be easily pulled down a rabbit hole where a broken contract equates to Dempsey was afraid to fight Wills. Remember that Dempsey won the lawsuit. It was remanded for retrial which Dempsey could just as easily won again. We will never know as their was no retrial.

So as I have stated from day 1, actually starting last year when the poster tried this game he plays with me....it does not matter whether Dempsey broke a contract in 1926 to fight a much tougher opponent in Tunney.

No black fighter fought a white heavyweight champion except Johnson (he fought Burns, a Canadian) for the title from the start of heavyweight boxing history as we know it until 1937. Their is a reason for this and it had nothing to do with Dempsey. In fact the ramifications of Johnson winning the title was one of the prime reasons Wills never got his title shot.

This guy...

2003 bio of Dempsey...I'll get right on that. Mustn't be the book you named cause that's a 70s.

Oh, you mean the 2003 reprint of Randy Robert's 1979 Jack Dempsey, the Manassa Mauler?

[travestyny]

Remember that Dempsey won the lawsuit. It was remanded for retrial which Dempsey could just as easily won again. We will never know as their was no retrial.

So as I have stated from day 1, actually starting last year when the poster tried this game he plays with me....it does not matter whether Dempsey broke a contract in 1926 to fight a much tougher opponent in Tunney.

I just saw this part. You are not being honest at all and you know it. Look at the case brief. If anyone wants me to try to upload it somewhere, feel free to ask.


First of all, it states that Dempsey CLEARLY breached the contract.

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

You're trying to equate the discussion about actual damages to whether Dempsey broke the contract or not, and that is disingenuous. Not only that, but on the topic of damages, if that's where your standard lies, the court brief also explains that Dempsey was indeed liable for damages.

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.

The court made it clear that Dempsey broke the contract AND was on the hook for damages, though nominal damages.

Not to mention..how do you even try to consider this a win when an injunction was slapped on Dempsey forbidding him to fight anyone but Wills, which meant the Tunny fight wasn't happening in Chicago, and wasn't happening in NY because they also barred Dempsey from fighting anyone but Wills. Philly was the third option. I wonder how many more cities should have barred Dempsey before he got with the program the public was asking for.

So what we have is what I've been saying from day 1, which happens to be the same EXACT thing that the court says above:

1. There was a valid and fair contract.
2. The promoter followed the contract perfectly.
3. Dempsey backed out of the contract and ducked Harry Wills, who called him out on dodging him himself in the past.

There is a vast historical record going back stating that this is obvious, so pretending that the historical record rejects this is pointless when evidence to the contrary is so easily found. You can't pick and choose who to believe. You try to take Fleischer but dismiss Farley as simply being out for the black vote (which still doesn't explain why he would falsely accuse Dempsey of ducking). Look at it all, consider the facts of what happened, and it only leads to one person pulling the plug on a fair offer to fight "the only man he ever wanted to fight since becoming champion" SEVEN years before.

[HOUDINI563]

I have the 2003 reprint. What bios of Dempsey sit on your shelves?

[Marchegiano]

I have the 2003 reprint. What bios of Dempsey sit on your shelves?

Okay, maybe you're less of a **** and more this is a failure to communicate.

There's no problem with the source. The problem is having to do detective work to figure out what you are talking about when you can just say it.


How does one totally ignorant know the 03/79 is what you mean and not some other Dempsey book actually released in 03? By detectiving the thread or amazon?

It's a bit unnecessary pain in the ass don't you think?

"real historian" Randy Roberts....dude...it's not hard.

2003 Dempsey Bio - Randy Robert's Dempsey book

see, not hard.

[HOUDINI563]

I had indicated originally it was the Randy Roberts bio.

What bios of Dempseys are on your shelf?