Who was better Dempsey or Tunney?

[HOUDINI563]

Dempsey lost the breach of contract suit in 1930. Having to compensate the Chicago AC for monies spent up to the date of his publicly announced 'breach' in July 1926.

The Chicago people wanted $800,000 they got around $1,500.

Dempsey lost, but he won.

Actually no. I found a few months ago several significant articles from 1930 that showed conclusively that Dempsey was awarded the lawsuit verdict.

The next year the decision was appealed and the appellate judge threw the case back for retrial. Within that decision the appellate judge listed/determined what costs Dempsey could be liable for if the case was retried AND had the plaintiff won the retrial. However the case was never retried.

[Willie Pep 229]

Actually no. I found a few months ago several significant articles from 1930 that showed conclusively that Dempsey was awarded the lawsuit verdict.

The next year the decision was appealed and the appellate judge threw the case back for retrial. Within that decision the appellate judge listed/determined what costs Dempsey could be liable for if the case was retried AND had the plaintiff won the retrial. However the case was never retried.

I find that difficult legal logic to parse. Dempsey made a public reputation of the contract in early July 1926.

So the breach should have been stipulated and only the award in question.

TravestyNY suggested that the plaintiff (CAC) won the trial case but appealed the limitations placed on the award, (monies spent before the reputation only.) Dempsey won the appeal.

This sounded correct to me at the time. I don't remember it being remanded for retrial.

Need to read the appellate court decision again. But I don't have it.

[travestyny]

This guy goes round and round spouting the same bs as if he hasn't already been corrected. Dempsey did not "win" this case. At best, he got off from being forced to pay a large amount. The injunction slapped against him stood, which is why he was not able to fight Tunney in Chicago, his original choice for that fight. Damages were sought and initially the court said they could not award damages because it couldn't be proven how much the plaintiffs would lose. This decision is what was appealed and sent back because the court said that though major damages could not be definitively proven, other damages could and should be considered.

The court stated in plain English itself that the plaintiff should have won damages. So how did Dempsey "win" if the court admits he was at fault? Proof? I'll let the court tell it.

Not only did the court say Dempsey clearly breached the contract, it states in plain English that he should have been held liable even if only for minimal damages. That's not a "win." That's a loss that amounts to a slap on the wrist. See for yourselves. Hopefully this is the last time I have to explain this.






Stating "judgement should have been for the plaintiff" is very different from "the defendant wins." The court makes clear here that Dempsey lost this case, but the minimal amounts that would be awarded weren't enough for the Coliseum Club to want to proceed any further.

TLDR version: He lost. He had an injunction slapped against him and was found liable for (nominal) damages. I've explained this many times. The end.

[HOUDINI563]

I find that difficult legal logic to parse. Dempsey made a public reputation of the contract in early July 1926.

So the breach should have been stipulated and only the award in question.

TravestyNY suggested that the plaintiff (CAC) won the trial case but appealed the limitations placed on the award, (monies spent before the reputation only.) Dempsey won the appeal.

This sounded correct to me at the time. I don't remember it being remanded for retrial.

Need to read the appellate court decision again. But I don't have it.

My goodness the appellate judges decision mentions several times that the case is sent back for retrial:

“During the proceeding in the circuit court of this county it was sought to introduce evidence for the purpose of showing damages, other than nominal damages, and in view of the fact that the case has to be retried, this court is asked to consider the various items of expense claimed to have been incurred and various offers of proof made to establish damages for breach of the agreement.”

Case was sent back for retrial. The appellate judge determined what costs could be recover had the plaintiff won that retrial.

[HOUDINI563]

I had posted numerous and in some detail how the trial ended. The judge told the jury to bring a decision in Dempseys favor. Very clear.

[Willie Pep 229]

I had posted numerous and in some detail how the trial ended. The judge told the jury to bring a decision in Dempseys favor. Very clear.

Can I read the sources in whole?

[HOUDINI563]

Can I read the sources in whole?

There is a thread I started with numerous attachments from earlier this year. Please check them out. It’s entitled something to the effect that Dempsey won the lawsuit regarding his contract with Wills. Something to that effect.

Dempsey agreed to fight Wills right here and now. The judge asked if the plaintiff agreed with Dempseys offer. They agreed. The judge asked the jury to come back with a decision in Dempseys favor. Trial was over that day or the next.

[Seasoned-Veteran]

Dempsey is one of the most mythical champions of all-time, no way Tunney compares in terms of mystique but I have to ask the question of who did Dempsey ever beat? He holds wins over Billy Miske, Battling Lewinsky, Jess Willard, Tommy Gibbons, Georges Carpentier, Bill Brennan and Jack Sharkey - not a bad group of fighters.

Then we look at Gene Tunney who beat Harry Greb (3 out of 4 - admittedly controversial wins), Tommy Loughran, Carpentier, Jeff Smith, Gibbons, Lewinsky. Also a good group of talent but I would suggest that Tunney's best opponents were better than Dempsey's.

I would say that Greb was the ***el in the crown of opponents for Tunney and that no one that Dempsey faced was as good as Greb. Tunney's four fights with Greb were brutal battles that could have gone either way (I am relying on memory from reading the brilliant Harry Greb book that Compton wrote)

I would put Tunney as the better fighter.

[Bronson66]

Dempsey is one of the most mythical champions of all-time, no way Tunney compares in terms of mystique but I have to ask the question of who did Dempsey ever beat? He holds wins over Billy Miske, Battling Lewinsky, Jess Willard, Tommy Gibbons, Georges Carpentier, Bill Brennan and Jack Sharkey - not a bad group of fighters.

Then we look at Gene Tunney who beat Harry Greb (3 out of 4 - admittedly controversial wins), Tommy Loughran, Carpentier, Jeff Smith, Gibbons, Lewinsky. Also a good group of talent but I would suggest that Tunney's best opponents were better than Dempsey's.

I would say that Greb was the ***el in the crown of opponents for Tunney and that no one that Dempsey faced was as good as Greb. Tunney's four fights with Greb were brutal battles that could have gone either way (I am relying on memory from reading the brilliant Harry Greb book that Compton wrote)

I would put Tunney as the better fighter.

Tunney beat Greb true.but,
Weight advantage to Tunney
12lbs
8 1/2lbs
3 1/2lbs
9lbs
13 1/2lbs
Tunney basically grew too big for Greb to handle.
Tunney's wins.
Nineteen years old years old Loughran who was conceding 6lbs.
Gibbons past it and having his last fight.
Levinsky fading.
Carpentier on the way out.
Smith conceding13lbs
Dempsey beat younger, fresher versions of Gibbons,Carpentier,Levinsky.
ps You forgot Dempsey's wins over Smith,Fulton, and Firpo.

[travestyny]

I had posted numerous and in some detail how the trial ended. The judge told the jury to bring a decision in Dempseys favor. Very clear.

The court says plainly that Dempsey is on the hook for damages. You keep ignoring that. It's right there in the document I posted.

1. The injunction was upheld against him.
2. The court said he owes nominal damages.

Read it. It's right there.

image.png

The purpose of the retrial was to decide WHAT DAMAGES DEMPSEY OWES. It says right there that as a matter of law he owes damages. There is no getting around what is staring you right in the face.