Why is Jack Johnson rated so high...

[Poet682006]

Never said it was simple. But what I do know is that if that contract was more lucrative than the Tunney fight, and Dempsey was the one who backed out, I don't know how anyone other than Dempsey can be blamed.

The people wanted it, the promoter wanted it, Wills wanted it. The money was there. Dempsey didn't want it. What am I missing?



Feel free to show me the duplicity. And now you are attacking me saying I have an alt? Really?


Keep it above board. If you're going to get upset and cry because you can't back up your claims, then take it somewhere else. I came here to discuss boxing, not to be attacked by you because you don't like the truth.

I have both Johnson and Dempsey rated high on my all-time heavyweight list. That being said, both fighters can be justly criticized for drawing the color line as champions. I don't think Dempsey wanted any part of Wills for whatever reason and was never serious about fighting him.

[Poet682006]

See! LOL

Do you really believe Dempsey-Wills was that simple? I guess you actually do.

Is any HW Championship fight ever that simple?

But of course the JJ situation is so complicated and different. Lol

You are the poster child of the duplicity I point to.

I see you surfaced once you found yourself a new buddy, or is this just another alt?

He has the same tendency to use the word proof and prove too often and then likes to ask bait questions, and when ignored keeps challenging the poster to answer his question. As if that in itself is some kind if victory.

Maybe there are two of you in the world. Grab onto this guy because he is at the very least your soul mate if not another alt.

Anyway thank you for replying.

If you're referring to that Atomic Moron, Ivich, I can assure you he's not travestyny's alt. Jesus, he doesn't even post remotely like him ffs

[travestyny]

I have both Johnson and Dempsey rated high on my all-time heavyweight list. That being said, both fighters can be justly criticized for drawing the color line as champions. I don't think Dempsey wanted any part of Wills for whatever reason and was never serious about fighting him.

That's fair. I just don't agree that Johnson drew the color line. His fights with the colored champions were all pulled due to no fault of his own. That's the point that has been made here a number of times. I don't have a problem with people believing he could have done more to make those fights. But if they say he never agreed to the fights, that's a flat out lie.

With Dempsey, I do also believe it was complicated. I don't believe he was afraid of Wills, per se. Personally, I believe he was afraid of the prospect of losing to a Black boxer and what that would do to his legacy, and how his racist wife would look at him. All I know is that boxing commissions, promoters, the fans, they were all trying to get Dempsey to face Wills and it's clear he didn't want to for whatever reason.

I mean he stated flat out that he wouldn't fight Joe Jeannette because he's a Black man, so I don't know why this would be out of the ordinary for him.

[travestyny]

If you're referring to that Atomic Moron, Ivich, I can assure you he's not travestyny's alt. Jesus, he doesn't even post remotely like him ffs

It's just the usual attacks when they have a different opinion. I don't know why we can't agree to disagree without the extracurricular activity.

[HOUDINI563]

I think T is correct about this one. Dempsey breached the contract and he lost in court.

What happened was that the plaintiff should have stopped spending money the moment Dempsey pubically announced he was walking away from the contract.

In a sense Dempsey won because he only had to pay a small amount of expense money, the big money claim by the plaintiff was laughed at.

Dempsey did fact fact challenge Wills, in the court room in 1932. Everyone laughed. It was for the press.

Dempsey WON the lawsuit. It was appealed and then remanded for retrial but never retrialed. That does not change the fact that the arguments presented during the trial caused the jury to side with Dempsey. What were those arguments?

[travestyny]

Dempsey WON the lawsuit. It was appealed and then remanded for retrial but never retrialed. That does not change the fact that the arguments presented during the trial caused the jury to side with Dempsey. What were those arguments?

How did he win if he was smacked with an injunction and it was remanded FOR DAMAGES. The court brief specifically states there was a clear breach of contract.

[HOUDINI563]

If you call winning the lawsuit being found to have broken the contract, then yes.

It was sent back for DAMAGES. The court specifically stated that he broke the contract and was responsible for damages.

I read an article where he claimed he would fight Wills next and nothing ever came of it and there was no reason given for it not coming about other than both of them losing their next fight.

Dempsey won the lawsuit. You need to present the argument Dempsey presented to the Jury to explain what occurred. Without this we do not understand what made the jury side with Dempsey. We don’t know Dempseys testimony under oath and the details as he saw it. Without THIS you are speculating regarding his motives.

[HOUDINI563]

How did he win if he was smacked with an injunction and it was remanded FOR DAMAGES. The court brief specifically states there was a clear breach of contract.

Tell everyone Dempseys testimony under oath during the trial that was enough to cause the Jury to find him not guilty. You avoided this question since day 1.

[travestyny]

Dempsey won the lawsuit. You need to present the argument Dempsey presented to the Jury to explain what occurred. Without this we do not understand what made the jury side with Dempsey. We don’t know Dempseys testimony under oath and the details as he saw it. Without THIS you are speculating regarding his motives.

I'm going to ask you again. How do you win a lawsuit if you are found to be on the hook for damages?

[travestyny]

Tell everyone Dempseys testimony under oath during the trial that was enough to cause the Jury to find him not guilty. You avoided this question since day 1.

Having an injunction slammed against you and being found to owe damages is far from not guilty.


Was the injunction because he did something right?