Did Jack Johnson participate in fixed fights?

[Willie Pep 229]

If Rickard was on board, doesn't that prove the fight could have been made?

I want to address both in this reply.

Yes the fight not only could have been made but it would have sold out the Polo Grounds just as Firpo did.

Maybe the greatest single 'should have been' fight in boxing history.

----‐-----------------------

Everything Farley says was based on courting the black voter in New York.

Farley made his bones by stretching Tammany's power uptown. I.e. Harlem

In 1920 Farley won a state seat in upstate New York (Rockland County) being the first ******** to win that seat since the inception of the ********** Party in 1856.

He lost the seat in the subsequent election and Tammany (Jimmy Walker of the Walker Law) got him a paycheck (a patronage position) on the NYSAC as payback.

Farley would go on to lead Tammany and become FDR's 1932 go to guy in NY. He would be rewarded for his effort by appointment as Post Master General.

Farley isn't remembered by as anyone for his integrity. He is remembered as being a ********ic King Maker!

Everything he says about Wills is placate on the Negro vote! Thus he is an obvious source of little value.

Yes, I know, I know . . . a whole bunch of newspaper guys, who wanted access to the king maker, gave him his own award (for integrity*)

The man was involved and eventually dominated ********ic politics in New York from 1918 through the 1940s. That will get you all kinds of honors from disingenuous kind of folk (newspaper writers).

P.S. Ask John Nance Garner (VP) what he thinks of James Farley's integrity. LOL

[travestyny]

I want to address both in this reply.

Yes the fight not only could have been made but it would have sold out the Polo Grounds just as Firpo did.

Maybe the greatest single 'should have been' fight in boxing history.

----‐-----------------------

Everything Farley says was based on courting the black voter in New York.

Farley made his bones by stretching Tammany's power uptown. I.e. Harlem

In 1920 Farley won a state seat in upstate New York (Rockland County) being the first ******** to win that seat since the inception of the ********** Party in 1856.

He lost the seat in the subsequent election and Tammany (Jimmy Walker of the Walker Law) got him a paycheck (a patronage position) on the NYSAC as payback.

Farley would go on to lead Tammany and become FDR's 1932 go to guy in NY. He would be rewarded for his effort by appointment as Post Master General.

Farley isn't remembered by as anyone for his integrity. He is remembered as being a ********ic King Maker!

Everything he says about Wills is placate on the Negro vote! Thus he is an obvious source of little value.

Yes, I know, I know . . . a whole bunch of newspaper guys, who wanted access to the king maker, gave him his own award (for integrity*)

The man was involved and eventually dominated ********ic politics in New York from 1918 through the 1940s. That will get you all kinds of honors from disingenuous kind of folk (newspaper writers).

P.S. Ask John Nance Garner (VP) what he thinks of James Farley's integrity. LOL

None of this means Farley is lying about there being no opposition to the fight. He would have placated the Black vote even more if the fight was made, perhaps. So again, I don't understand what your argument is.

I think we just agreed that the fight could have been made.

[Willie Pep 229]

None of this means Farley is lying about there being no opposition to the fight. He would have placated the Black vote even more if the fight was made, perhaps. So again, I don't understand what your argument is.

I think we just agreed that the fight could have been made.

The argument is that the truth will never be discerned by reading Farley's opinion. Maybe he's right, maybe he's not, either way what he said is what he would say regardless.

Absolutely, the fight should have been made, the fight COULD have been made. Kearns didn't want it because it meant Rickard would be involved.

[travestyny]

The argument is that the truth will never be discerned by reading Farley's opinion. Maybe he's right, maybe he's not, either way what he said is what he would say regardless.

Absolutely, the fight should have been made, the fight COULD have been made. Kearns didn't want it because it meant Rickard would be involved.

Farley is just saying the same thing you are saying, except he agrees with me that Dempsey deserves some of the blame.

[Willie Pep 229]

Farley is just saying the same thing you are saying, except he agrees with me that Dempsey deserves some of the blame.

No! He's not.

Forget the Dempsey issue for now.

Farley's missive claims there was no political or official barrier to the fight.

In regards to "official" (government/law) it was a mix. New York flipped flopped on the issue several times with the Polo Grounds being available and not available. But once Farely and Tammany were in complete control it (Polo Grounds) was available.

New Jersey went back and forth with its head of athletics saying no to mixed bouts while its governor saying it was possible. Boston was right out and denied the possibility of any mixed fight.

It wasn't as cut and dry as he makes it. But IMO it was from time to time doable if the right players had stepped up.

In regards to politics his statement holds no water. Politics = bias.

From Farley's POV there certainly was no political opposition, he was building the black vote and by 1932 he would deliever that vote to the ********s.

1932 would be the first time the ********s would carry the vast majority of the black vote and historically Farley is viewed as one of its most powerful movers and shakers.

But to claim that there was NO political opposition is just political rhetoric. I again say, if we take him at his word, why then did we need a civil rights movement.

There was much "political" opposition.

There is politics and there is government.

There were mixed government (official) reactions; there was both supportive and hostile political actions occurung as well.

I don't see why people think that any one man's opinion can be used to define a prevailing social tempament.

The 1920s was full of racism.

[travestyny]

No! He's not.

Forget the Dempsey issue for now.

Farley's missive claims there was no political or official barrier to the fight.

In regards to "official" (government/law) it was a mix. New York flipped flopped on the issue several times with the Polo Grounds being available and not available. But once Farely and Tammany were in complete control it (Polo Grounds) was available.

New Jersey went back and forth with its head of athletics saying no to mixed bouts while its governor saying it was possible. Boston was right out and denied the possibility of any mixed fight.

It wasn't as cut and dry as he makes it. But IMO it was from time to time doable if the right players had stepped up.

In regards to politics his statement holds no water. Politics = bias.

From Farley's POV there certainly was no political opposition, he was building the black vote and by 1932 he would deliever that vote to the ********s.

1932 would be the first time the ********s would carry the vast majority of the black vote and historically Farley is viewed as one of its most powerful movers and shakers.

But to claim that there was NO political opposition is just political rhetoric. I again say, if we take him at his word, why then did we need a civil rights movement.

There was much "political" opposition.

There is politics and there is government.

There were mixed government (official) reactions; there was both supportive and hostile political actions occurung as well.

I don't see why people think that any one man's opinion can be used to define a prevailing social tempament.

The 1920s was full of racism.

But again, you are agreeing with him that it was doable. So I don't understand why you are writing so much just to say you agree with his overall outlook. What am I missing here?

[QueensburyRules]

NY was willing and ready for the Wills Dempsey fight, so no it has not be 'splained. So was Chicago. A NY commissioner contradicts what you said specifically. Stated in plain terms that there was no barrier to the fight taking place. Do you deny these things, because they are easily proven.

- - Yesss, no doubt in playdough world you would put together the playdough fight in your playdough ring.

Dempsey jumped through zillions of hoops trying to make the fight and spent his own money trying to do it. If he didn't want the fight, Nyet, Nope, go suck an all day sucker sucker, but that ain't what he did.

World today just as horrific as it was in 1920, so maybe you should go try to straighten out the world currently in fast track to self annihilation.

[travestyny]

- - Yesss, no doubt in playdough world you would put together the playdough fight in your playdough ring.

Dempsey jumped through zillions of hoops trying to make the fight and spent his own money trying to do it. If he didn't want the fight, Nyet, Nope, go suck an all day sucker sucker, but that ain't what he did.

World today just as horrific as it was in 1920, so maybe you should go try to straighten out the world currently in fast track to self annihilation.

No he didn't. But he did break a contract looking to avoid the fight.

He also claimed he needed more time to train when Rickard wanted it, and dodged out.

I'm not interested in your childish insults. Come with some facts.

Did he break a contract for the fight? Did he claim he needed more time and thus refused the fight? Yes or no?

[QueensburyRules]

No he didn't. But he did break a contract looking to avoid the fight.

He also claimed he needed more time to train when Rickard wanted it, and dodged out.

I'm not interested in your childish insults. Come with some facts.

Did he break a contract for the fight? Did he claim he needed more time and thus refused the fight? Yes or no?

- - A contract the judge ruled worth, what, $35?

Really?

Surely you realize without political backing, finding a venue and $$$ backing near impossible.

Like I showed you, the Frazee 1920 deal in Red Sox Stadium with a record setting purse was the hottest point for the fight and the prime of the fighters, and completely doable for all but the politicos.

It runs down hill as you surely must know, and that is exactly what it did.

[travestyny]

- - A contract the judge ruled worth, what, $35?

Really?

Surely you realize without political backing, finding a venue and $$$ backing near impossible.

Like I showed you, the Frazee 1920 deal in Red Sox Stadium with a record setting purse was the hottest point for the fight and the prime of the fighters, and completely doable for all but the politicos.

It runs down hill as you surely must know, and that is exactly what it did.

What does that matter. The contract was to FIGHT.

Dempsey claimed Wills was the only man he wanted to fight since becoming champ.

But you agree that he broke the contract and also declined because he wasn't ready at one point, right?



Your Frazee deal is irrelevant if he couldn't pull it off. We are discussing where the fight COULD be made and it not happening because of.... Dempsey's side. There is no other way I can describe what happened, because that's what happened.