Why is Jack Johnson rated so high...

[Willie Pep 229]

[QUOTE=travestyny;n31379634]

Because that was a different instance of this fight

Jesus Christ man. You gotta let this go. The bounced check was BEFORE the Chicago Coliseum Club got involved.



Now you are reaching into Langford's mind He remembers Dempsey signing with Fitz. That doesn't mean Fitz was still the promoter. He wasn't. The court made it clear that Fitz had nothing to do with the issue. You better go check that court brief again




False. He was already done when they signed the new contract in March. If the deal was for him to transfer over the fight, how the hell did that not happen when Dempsey signed with the Chicago Coliseum Club?





You are curios. Say no more


From the court brief:





Think that makes it clear. Dempsey shouldn't have signed with Chicago Coliseum Club if he didn't want to work with the Chicago Coliseum Club. Give up.

[P5363p15/QUOTE]

Post the brief again. Of course there would be such a clause becuse Fitz bailed out.

Your banking your argument that it all happened quid pro quo. Dempsey doesn't breach until July. Plenty of time for Fitz to lead Dempsry away.

Not Langford's mind just a quote you posted - he called it a Fitz fight I wonder why if everyone as you put it thought Dempsey signed with an AC.

Fitz led Dempsey away from Chiacgo. You just don't want to believe it.

Explain what Fitz is doing with Dempsey after July's breach if you're so certain Ftiz wasn't involved?

[Willie Pep 229]

Because that was a different instance of this fight

Jesus Christ man. You gotta let this go. The bounced check was BEFORE the Chicago Coliseum Club got involved.



Now you are reaching into Langford's mind He remembers Dempsey signing with Fitz. That doesn't mean Fitz was still the promoter. He wasn't. The court made it clear that Fitz had nothing to do with the issue. You better go check that court brief again




False. He was already done when they signed the new contract in March. If the deal was for him to transfer over the fight, how the hell did that not happen when Dempsey signed with the Chicago Coliseum Club?





You are curios. Say no more


From the court brief:





Think that makes it clear. Dempsey shouldn't have signed with Chicago Coliseum Club if he didn't want to work with the Chicago Coliseum Club. Give up.

So you are saying

the first bad check was relevant to the first contract not the second

that Dempsey signed a second contract with CAC

so we are suspose to conclude that Dempsey walked away from that second signing (I believe you said in March) without any kind of a monetary retainer?

It is early July when Dempsey pubically breaches the contract with CAC.

If they did give Dempsey any front money why didn't they ask for it back in the law suit? No doubt they would have won that case.

The first contract promised Dempsey 60K for training expenses, whether or not the check cashed is irrelevant.

Why didn't Denpsey receive any training money after the second signing?

This dog don't hunt.

[GhostofDempsey]

Langford first approached Kearns and Fitzsimmons in 1920 where he was given a shot at Bill Tate on the Miske undercard. Which Langford lost.

It was probably there they realized that Langford was no longer a serious contender.

He was losing fights to Tate as early as 1917. He also lost vision in one eye in his KO loss to Fulton in 1917. By 1918 he is in obvious decline, and it doesn't get any better from there on out. The timing of a Dempsey/Langford fight just wasn't there. It's a lot like Ali/Holmes. There was never a time where Holmes could have fought a better version of Ali, Holmes didn't hit his prime until 1978, even though he was fighting since 1973. Would anyone fault Holmes if he declined a fight with Ali in '74 or '75? Absolutely not, but they sure did give him a lot of heat for beating up on Ali in 1980 when he was all but washed up. This is what Dempsey/Langford looked like to anyone who followed their careers back then.

[Ivich]

He was losing fights to Tate as early as 1917. He also lost vision in one eye in his KO loss to Fulton in 1917. By 1918 he is in obvious decline, and it doesn't get any better from there on out. The timing of a Dempsey/Langford fight just wasn't there. It's a lot like Ali/Holmes. There was never a time where Holmes could have fought a better version of Ali, Holmes didn't hit his prime until 1978, even though he was fighting since 1973. Would anyone fault Holmes if he declined a fight with Ali in '74 or '75? Absolutely not, but they sure did give him a lot of heat for beating up on Ali in 1980 when he was all but washed up. This is what Dempsey/Langford looked like to anyone who followed their careers back then.

Bottom line there was no demand for a Dempsey title defence against Langford at any time.
I've been reading for years Dempsey ducked Jeannette ,Langford ,and McVey , on forums ,and it's a lot of horse ****.

[GhostofDempsey]

Bottom line there was no demand for a Dempsey title defence against Langford at any time.
I've been reading for years Dempsey ducked Jeannette ,Langford ,and McVey , on forums ,and it's a lot of horse ****.

Yeah, the Jeannette fiasco was nothing more than a publicity stunt. There is no other fighter in boxing history who would have been held to the same standard and expected to fight a last minute substitute under those conditions, especially for a charity exhibition fight. McVey was actually employed as a sparring partner for Dempsey very briefly in 1920. We have too many casual fans who want to hold fighters of one era to the same standards as fighters today. The politics, social climate, and culture of the early 1900's was quite different than today. Yet even today fights that fans want cannot be made, mostly because of managers/networks/promoters, in some ways, the more things change the more they stay the same.

[Ivich]

Yeah, the Jeannette fiasco was nothing more than a publicity stunt. There is no other fighter in boxing history who would have been held to the same standard and expected to fight a last minute substitute under those conditions, especially for a charity exhibition fight. McVey was actually employed as a sparring partner for Dempsey very briefly in 1920. We have too many casual fans who want to hold fighters of one era to the same standards as fighters today. The politics, social climate, and culture of the early 1900's was quite different than today. Yet even today fights that fans want cannot be made, mostly because of managers/networks/promoters, in some ways, the more things change the more they stay the same.

Its strange that Sullivan,Corbett,Fitz,Jeffries etc were not measured by this standard .Dempsey originally stated he would pay no attention to black challengers,but amended this stance later.Boxing is a business and a very corrupt one the great fights we never saw are the result of alphabet organizations not wanting to lose sanctioning fees and rival networks having a phobia about there golden geese sustaining a loss.
No Lewis v Bowe,McGuigan v Nelson, Conteh v Galindez, Pedroza v Sanchez, no Wilder v Joshua,and Floyd v Pacman was so late it had become an irrelevance.Boxing is run for casuals I will be at Wembley Saturday night there will be 94,000 people there more than half of those will not watch any of the supporting bouts ,which on paper look to be crapanyway, and more than half of them could not name a dozen active boxers.

[GhostofDempsey]

Its strange that Sullivan,Corbett,Fitz,Jeffries etc were not measured by this standard .Dempsey originally stated he would pay no attention to black challengers,but amended this stance later.Boxing is a business and a very corrupt one the great fights we never saw are the result of alphabet organizations not wanting to lose sanctioning fees and rival networks having a phobia about there golden geese sustaining a loss.
No Lewis v Bowe,McGuigan v Nelson, Conteh v Galindez, Pedroza v Sanchez, no Wilder v Joshua,and Floyd v Pacman was so late it had become an irrelevance.Boxing is run for casuals I will be at Wembley Saturday night there will be 94,000 people there more than half of those will not watch any of the supporting bouts ,which on paper look to be crapanyway, and more than half of them could not name a dozen active boxers.

Even more suspect is that Tunney never received the same type of criticism, and he never fought a black fighter. So far as I can recall, neither did Tommy Loughran, and he is considered one of the best LHWs of all time.

[Ivich]

Even more suspect is that Tunney never received the same type of criticism, and he never fought a black fighter. So far as I can recall, neither did Tommy Loughran, and he is considered one of the best LHWs of all time.

To be fair there really were not many top black175pounders in Loughran's time.You're right ,neither fought a black man ,Tunney did offer to fight an aging Wills for the right to face Dempsey but Harry declined.
There are photos of Tunney dining with Joe Louis so I am assuming colour prejudice was not the reason he never met one in the ring and Dempsey got along well enough with Louis too
;
Sullivan never fought a black man,Sharkey fought 1 and was ko'd Corbett when champion ducked Jackson.Fitz and Ruhlin were happy to employ guys like Denver Ed Martin as spar mates but not so keen to face them in actual combat,Hart only fought 1 ,Johnson ditto Burns I believe, although matches with both McVey and Langford were proposed In truth the early heavyweight champions were only champions of the White heavyweight division. Many like Jeffries and Willard were happy to challenge black champions but would not entertain defending against them. I wish Dempsey had defended against Wills because I think he would have stopped him and significantly enhanced his legacy,which as the years pass diminishes .

[GhostofDempsey]

To be fair there really were not many top black175pounders in Loughran's time.You're right ,neither fought a black man ,Tunney did offer to fight an aging Wills for the right to face Dempsey but Harry declined.
There are photos of Tunney dining with Joe Louis so I am assuming colour prejudice was not the reason he never met one in the ring and Dempsey got along well enough with Louis too
;
Sullivan never fought a black man,Sharkey fought 1 and was ko'd Corbett when champion ducked Jackson.Fitz and Ruhlin were happy to employ guys like Denver Ed Martin as spar mates but not so keen to face them in actual combat,Hart only fought 1 ,Johnson ditto Burns I believe, although matches with both McVey and Langford were proposed In truth the early heavyweight champions were only champions of the White heavyweight division. Many like Jeffries and Willard were happy to challenge black champions but would not entertain defending against them. I wish Dempsey had defended against Wills because i think he would have stopped him and significantly enhanced his legacy,which as the years pass diminishes .

I think the majority believe Dempsey would have beaten Wills. Watching what limited film there is on Wills, he was not as polished. He was made to order for Dempsey. Ray Arcel gave his assessment and felt Wills was a very good journeyman fighter, but not in Dempsey's league. He thought Wills was too slow. He also towered over many of his opponents, often using his size and weight to lean on them and tie them up. But, if Dempsey beats him in '26, the Dempsey haters would say he beat an old Wills.

Have you ever seen any other fighter outside of Johnson who defended their title with the stipulation that the title could only be won on a knockout? I know in at least two of his fights those were conditions that had to be met in order to win his title (Battling Jim Johnson and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien). This was a common stipulation for the World Colored HW title, but I had never seen it used in any other HW championship fight aside from Johnson's.

[Ivich]

I think the majority believe Dempsey would have beaten Wills. Watching what limited film there is on Wills, he was not as polished. He was made to order for Dempsey. Ray Arcel gave his assessment and felt Wills was a very good journeyman fighter, but not in Dempsey's league. He thought Wills was too slow. He also towered over many of his opponents, often using his size and weight to lean on them and tie them up. But, if Dempsey beats him in '26, the Dempsey haters would say he beat an old Wills.

Have you ever seen any other fighter outside of Johnson who defended their title with the stipulation that the title could only be won on a knockout? I know in at least two of his fights those were conditions that had to be met in order to win his title (Battling Jim Johnson and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien). This was a common stipulation for the World Colored HW title, but I had never seen it used in any other HW championship fight aside from Johnson's.

Willard v Moran. BTW Johnson didn't make those stipulations and the Battling Jim Johnson fight was not a no dec.. O Brien brokered the Johnson fight and the conditions,picked the arena ,in his home town and took the largest purse.