If Dempsey Had Defended Against Wills,Godfrey & Norfolk?

[travestyny]

By the way Willie Pep 229

Do you now admit that you were wrong when you said Wills' people were not interested in having the fight anywhere but New York?

If you want to discuss in good faith, you have to admit when you are wrong.

[Willie Pep 229]

Is it a hatchet job if that's what happened? Again, sources say that he refused the fight because he claimed he couldn't get into shape.

No source because it's at the top of the newspaper and it's too clunky to post the entire front page. If it ever becomes important to show the source, I'll show the source. What do you hope to get from seeing the source?

If you want another one, have at it. And here it proves you wrong yet again since Kearns was meeting with Rickard regarding Montreal. Even said they might fight for a percentage.

And this was AFTER Dempsey already turned them down saying he can't get into shape. Apparently they were trying to save the Montreal fight.


And yes, the above article says the exact words, "WILLS HAD EAGERLY ACCEPTED RICKARD'S TERMS." I don't know why you are pretending not to see that.

No, it doesn't work that way. No source, it has no value. It's a hatchet job and your trying to hide that you know it is.

An article with a headline Dempsey "runs off" makes its claim that Wills was eag worth nothing.

You got Fox News! Thus far you got nothing I can see worth reading.

Source It or stop posting it as an authority. You get to play by the same rules as everyone one else.

This is the second time in just two months you and I played this silly source game.

I suspect I'll be hearing from the other guy real soon now.

[travestyny]

No, it doesn't work that way. No source, it has no value. It's a hatchet job and your trying to hide that you know it is.

An article with a headline Dempsey "runs off" makes its claim that Wills was eag worth nothing.

You got Fox News! Thus far you got nothing I can see worth reading.

Source It or stop posting it as an authority. You get to play by the same rules as everyone one else.

This is the second time in just two months you and I played this silly source game.

I suspect I'll be hearing from the other guy real soon now.

What are you accusing me of now? You want the source, well here it is. That should take away all of your excuses.


Source of Clipping 1: Great Falls tribune. June 08, 1922

Source of Clipping 2: The New York Herald. June 22, 1922


You get real upset when the facts proves you wrong, don't you? Are you going to admit now that you were wrong when you said Wills' people were not interested in having the fight anywhere but New York?

[Willie Pep 229]

Kearns openly voiced his frustration over Rickard’s cut of the gate. He said Rickard came away with $1.5 million in two fights (Willard and Carpentier) while Jack only earned $327K for those two fights. Kearns insisted Dempsey be paid at least half going forward. Dempsey would no longer accept the short end of the take. Kearns knew a Wills fight would generate well over a million dollars at the gate. He wasn’t accepting a $350K offer for Montreal. Dempsey was signing multiple movie contracts at $200K a pop during this time, earning thousands per month doing vaudeville and theater appearances for as little as 30 minutes per appearance.

There was also the proposed date of July 1st that was unrealistic. Dempsey just returned from Europe in May, he wasn’t about to scramble and jump right into a short training camp while details, contracts, and guarantees had not even been negotiated with Kearns. No other fighter has eve been held to this ridiculous standard, not then, not today.

Let that little birdy keep chirping into the wind with his anonymous sources and tabloid articles. You know how this goes.

Agreed.

To add to it, go back to Carpenter. Rickard offered Kearns a guarantee plus a percentage. Kearns insisted on a flat 300k and got it.

After the 1.2 million dollar gate, the newspaper guys had a field day ridiculing Kearns.

Had Kearns taken the original offer Dempsey would have pulled in (the newspaper guys did the math, right there in the newspaper) 470K plus.

Kearns' gaff cost Dempsey 170K and Rickard made sure everyone knew he had out negotiated Doc Kearns.

I believe that's where Kearns came up with the 500K guarantee. He wasn't going to be made to look ****** again.

When you look at Shelby, Kearns had wasted half of 1921 and all of 1922 trying to get a 500K guarantee. So when he finally found Shelby he knew they could never meet the 500K, so he insisted on 300K guarantee plus a percentage.

Notice the numbers: 300K flat rate just like the Carpentier fight, but this time he wouldn't leave behind the percentage and look the fool again.

You stop and think, Dempsey fought on July 4th 1921 and July 4th 1923. Kearns blew two years jerking everyone around and then dropped the ball in Shelby.

I believe Shelby was the beginning of the end for Dempsey-Kearns. But that's a story for another day.

[Willie Pep 229]

By the way Willie Pep 229

Do you now admit that you were wrong when you said Wills' people were not interested in having the fight anywhere but New York?

If you want to discuss in good faith, you have to admit when you are wrong.

No I don't! Don't ask me again. You and this need you have to make other people admit they are wrong is perverse.

[Willie Pep 229]

What are you accusing me of now? You want the source, well here it is. That should take away all of your excuses.


Source of Clipping 1: Great Falls tribune. June 08, 1922

Source of Clipping 2: The New York Herald. June 22, 1922


You get real upset when the facts proves you wrong, don't you? Are you going to admit now that you were wrong when you said Wills' people were not interested in having the fight anywhere but New York?

And I still say it wasn't Wills call. Tammany owned him.

[travestyny]

No I don't! Don't ask me again. You and this need you have to make other people admit they are wrong is perverse.

I don't have a need for anything except the truth. We are here for the truth, right? Why are you acting like a child?

How can you have genuine discourse if something you say is proven to be false but you won't admit it?

[travestyny]

And I still say it wasn't Wills call. Tammany owned him.

lol. That's all? I don't think you needed the sources to write that.

I thought Tammany was New York. They must have wanted him in Canada, huh? Not just New York, right?

[Willie Pep 229]

lol. That's all. I don't think you needed the sources to write that.

I thought Tammany was New York. They must have wanted him in Canada, huh? Not just New York, right?

You search through posts looking for any single fact you can twist and then ignore all the rest of the argument. Just so you can then try to make the other guy admit he is wrong.

You love the high horse of "facts" and "truths" but you're actually a can artist.

You still to this very day post Queenie's typo regarding 2022 when everyone knew he meant but you wouldn't let ot go.

Now your latest nonsense is to keep throwing up to Dr. Z that he typoed 'execute.'

You call me childish? Wow!

P.S. All you have actually posted so far is a third party source claiming what a New York writer (a second party source,) susposedly said. You haven't come close to posting anything from Wills people.

Don't bother.

[travestyny]

You search through posts looking for any single fact you can twist and then ignore all the rest of the argument. Just so you can then try to make the other guy admit he is wrong.

You love the high horse of "facts" and "truths" but you're actually a can artist.

You still to this very day post Queenie's typo regarding 2022 when everyone lnew he meant byt you wouldn't let ot go.

Now your latest nobsense is to keep throwing up to Dr. Z that he typoed 'execute.'

You call me childish? Wow!

P.S. All you have actually posted so far is a third party source claiming what a New York writer (a second party source,) susposedly said. You haven't come close to posting anything from Wills people.

Don't bother.

I do no such thing. But you do a whole lot of accusing.

I read through posts because I'm reading the topic. What is the big deal? If you say something incorrect, you want me to just ignore it so you don't feel bad about yourself? Is that your argument?

What is wrong with you?


Maybe you should be less concerned with me and more concerned with the topic. But you're obviously upset again because the facts don't support what you are saying. Keep it to the topic. You were wrong.


Wills people have always stated they were willing to take this fight anywhere. You know that, I know that, and if I searched hard enough I can find them saying just that. Why that makes you mad, I have no idea. But yes, you come across as very childish when it comes to this topic. Like posters should just leave you to lie in peace so you don't have a meltdown.