If Dempsey Had Defended Against Wills,Godfrey & Norfolk?

[travestyny]

So you now agree it was actually Kearns vs Rickard and not Dempsey vs. Wills.

Glad you finally caught up.

Nope, I don't agree at all. I don't know where you got that from.

But if you want me to prove even more that you're full of it, I will. You're not going to like it though

Yep. In July 1922, that would be Kearns sending terms to Flournoy, who represented Rickard, for a Willard Dempsey bout to take place within a year. What do ya know??? I guess he was willing to keep working with Rickard


Queue up another excuse, boys

[GhostofDempsey]

IMO Flexibility on the date is irrelevant; Dempsey's complainant about training time was meaningless. Dempsey may have thought it was but Kearns was making the calls and had already made up his mind. No fight.

Kearns threw out the idea of a Montreal fight, and as soon a Rickard involved himself (disguised as Frank Flournoy,) Kearns goes silent and the fight falls apart.

Think about it! What does Frank Flournoy have to do with Wills? He runs MSG so why is speaking on behave of Wills? Because he represents NY not Wills.

He's not Wills' guy, he is Rickard's buddy not Wills' manager. So why would he have an opinion about what happens to Wills in Montreal? Unless he thinks he (actually Rickard) can get Kearns to sign papers.

Flournoy doesn't have that authority it's Rickard making his move through Flournoy.

This is the New York influence on Wills I am speaking of; Kearns wanted no part of New York because that meant Rickard would be involved.

I will go as far as suggesting Flournoy as a Wills' spoke person is really nothing more than Rickard pulling the strings.

I no longer have access to the NYT Time Machine so I can't pull up any sources, but I am pretty sure if you look a few days later than the above news article's date you will find Flournoy retracting the offer. Which again means nothing since Kearns was long ago, gone. The retraction was probably a face- saver in reply to Kearns sudden disinterest.

Montreal was all Kearns smoke, Dempsey was irrelevant to the decision made, it was just one more Kearns-Rickard parlay. Wills got used again. It was never going to happen even when Kearns proposed it. It was just another stall where Kearns had Rickard, Wills, and NYSAC all dancing to his tune, while he looked out west for a fight he wanted (one away from Rickard.) This should be so damn obvious if one wants to see it.

But karma caught up to Kearns, he got what he wanted (no Rickard) and it cost him dearly.

I repeat, if I said these things about Don King and Bob Arum woud everyone agree with me? Sure they would because we know how boxing works. But I show the same obvious BS negotiations between Rickard and Kearns and I hear the ridiculous argument that Dempsey was in charge. That is so conveniently naive.

I have long called out the resident Dempsey haters for the double standards. No other fighter is held to this unrealistic standard. Dempsey was under contract to Kearns, same way modern day fighters are under contract to managers and promoters and cannot just make the fights they want to make. To assume Dempsey could just make the fight without being sued for his entire purse and then some is delusional. Kearns and Dempsey were also not accepting short money while Rickard raked in 65% of the take.

Look at the Jeannette fiasco. Clowns in here insist Dempsey “ducked” him at a charity event when Jeannette pulled some WWE-like publicity stunt to replace his scheduled opponent at the last minute. Can you imagine any other fighter accepting those terms? Floyd who calls himself the best ever is about to fight some 125 pound Japanese no-hoper and suddenly Thurman or Porter enter the ring and challenge to replace his Japanese opponent. How does that go down? And again, it’s Kearns who tells him it’s not happening.

We have already proven how Muldoon refused to put the fight on in NY, and MA and NJ also declined the fight. Racial tensions were high in the early 20’s, riots had broken out all over the country; Oklahoma, Florida, Arkansas, were all knee-deep in race riots, while the KKK recruited over 200K new members in the Carolinas in 1921. The rewards of a Dempsey-Wills fight were superseded by the potential loss of life and property if Wills could pull off a win. Not many governors or athletic commissions were willing to accept that risk.

Montreal is just another gotcha point being pushed by a Dempsey hater who has had the wind taken out of his sails on NY and other stateside locales. Can’t accept it was Kearns, commissions, money and politics responsible for the fight not being made, not Dempsey’s unwillingness to fight him.

[GhostofDempsey]

Really, "checkmate" ? How come your susposed insightful self didn't ask whom Frank Flournoy worked for?

Not Wills! Unless ofcourse he held a silent percentage of Wiils' contract. But being promoter for MSG he probably shouldn't have.

You got duped once more by and un-cited, undated, edited news article.

And then you said something as ****** as '"checkmate."

He is not here to contribute anything of substance. He is an alt or emotional support pet of t-bag who shows up on every thread to cheerlead.

[travestyny]

Look at the Jeannette fiasco. Clowns in here insist Dempsey “ducked” him at a charity event when Jeannette pulled some WWE-like publicity stunt to replace his scheduled opponent at the last minute. Can you imagine any other fighter accepting those terms?.

I can name two fighters who would have accepted those terms.

1. Jack Britton, who said, "Let's get it on," when Dempsey said he'd fight "any two White men" rather than Jeannette.

2. Soldier Bartfeld, who said, "Let's get it on," when Dempsey said he'd fight "any two White men" rather than Jeannette.

Dempsey, who made the claim he would fight any two White men instead of fighting one Jeannette, then backtracked and declined.

Montreal is just another gotcha point being pushed by a Dempsey hater who has had the wind taken out of his sails on NY and other stateside locales. Can’t accept it was Kearns, commissions, money and politics responsible for the fight not being made, not Dempsey’s unwillingness to fight him.

Not true. When there was no Kearns, Dempsey still ducked the fight. A commissioner is on record saying there was no politics holding it up. The money was proven to be present. Dempsey didn't want it.


By the way, the commissioner also stated plainly that Dempsey was ducking. Which we obviously all know by now. Promoters who tried to make the match also came to the same conclusion.

[travestyny]

Really, "checkmate" ? How come your susposed insightful self didn't ask whom Frank Flournoy worked for?

Not Wills! Unless ofcourse he held a silent percentage of Wiils' contract. But being promoter for MSG he probably shouldn't have.

You got duped once more by and un-cited, undated, edited news article.

And then you said something as ****** as '"checkmate."

Oh wait...hold uppppp.


Edited? The newsarticle was edited? By whom? Do share!


If this is another accusation toward me (aren't you tired of being proven wrong?), then maybe you'd like to place a little wager on it. Show that you really believe what you say. I'm down. How about you?

[Willie Pep 229]

Nope, I don't agree at all. I don't know where you got that from.

But if you want me to prove even more that you're full of it, I will. You're not going to like it though

Yep. In July 1922, that would be Kearns sending terms to Flournoy, who represented Rickard, for a Willard Dempsey bout to take place within a year. What do ya know??? I guess he was willing to keep working with Rickard


Queue up another excuse, boys

My God over and over again I told you Kearns kept Ruckard at bay by constantly keeping him occupied with fights he never intended to make.

Damn it, that has been my argument all along.

Yes, Kearns kept New York busy with three different BS moves about a possible Wills fight, three times in 1922 alone, but never intended it to happen. Willard was kept on the table for the same reason, to stall.

Kearns never intended to fight any fighter, or at any venue, where Rickard could get involved.

When the NYSAC threatened to strip Dempsey, Kearns kept a Pittsburgh promoter (for Greb) dangling on a string for an entire month, and once NYSAC balked and didn't dare strip Dempsey's title, Kearns suddenly announced the Greb fight was off. Same day in fact. He never intended for that fight to happen either.

Wills, NYSAC, Greb, Willard, Montreal were all pawns used by Kearns to keep New York at a distance, because that kept Rickard at a distanced.

What proof do I have?

Dempsey ended up in Montana. That should tell you something.

[Willie Pep 229]

I can name two fighters who would have accepted those terms.

1. Jack Britton, who said, "Let's get it on," when Dempsey said he'd fight "any two White men" rather than Jeannette.

2. Soldier Bartfeld, who said, "Let's get it on," when Dempsey said he'd fight "any two White men" rather than Jeannette.

Dempsey, who made the claim he would fight any two White men instead of fighting one Jeannette, then backtracked and declined.




Not true. When there was no Kearns, Dempsey still ducked the fight. A commissioner is on record saying there was no politics holding it up. The money was proven to be present. Dempsey didn't want it.


By the way, the commissioner also stated plainly that Dempsey was ducking. Which we obviously all know by now. Promoters who tried to make the match also came to the same conclusion.

OK you just tried to pull 1925-26 out your ass. You know, I know, Ghost knows, that is a horse of a different color.

You're distracting from the argument at hand.

It was: Was Montreal ever really for real? Was its Dempsey's fault it didn't happen?

Stick to the debate, no sneaking off to 1926.

Totaly different debate.

[GhostofDempsey]

OK you just tried to pull 1925-26 out your ass. You know, I know, Ghost knows, that is a horse of a different color.

You're distracting from the argument at hand.

It was: Was Montreal ever really for real? Was its Dempsey's fault it didn't happen?

Stick to the debate, no sneaking off to 1926.

Totaly different debate.

Jeannette would have been a bigger money fight. Not a charity exhibition. It was a publicity stunt that he keeps using as some pathetic attempt at smearing Dempsey, as if he would actually duck fight with Jeannette at any age, let alone 40. Jack Johnson refused to fight any of them for the title, had any one of them entered the ring in place of Kaufman or Ketchel they would have been shown the door. Besides, if Dempsey challenged any white man, what was Jeannette doing in the ring? Lol. If Dempsey wasn’t permitted to fight blacks for the title he wasn’t about to violate the law for a charity exhibition.

We all know 1925 was a simple matter of front end money not being delivered as promised. Bad checks and a waste of Dempsey’s time was using his name for relevance. In ‘24 Wills goes 12 rounds with Firpo who Dempsey KO’d in 2 a couple years earlier. In 1925/26 Wills hadn’t fought or beaten anyone making him worthy of a title shot. In ‘25 Wills was ducking Godfrey, Dempsey’s sparring partner, who was the most deserving black fighter for a shot at his World Colored HW title.

[travestyny]

My God over and over again I told you Kearns kept Ruckard at bay by constantly keeping him occupied with fights he never intended to make.

Damn it, that has been my argument all along.

Yes, Kearns kept New York busy with three different BS moves about a possible Wills fight, three times in 1922 alone, but never intended it to happen. Willard was kept on the table for the same reason, to stall.

Kearns never intended to fight any fighter, or at any venue, where Rickard could get involved.

When the NYSAC threatened to strip Dempsey, Kearns kept a Pittsburgh promoter (for Greb) dangling on a string for an entire month, and once NYSAC balked and didn't dare strip Dempsey's title, Kearns suddenly announced the Greb fight was off. Same day in fact. He never intended for that fight to happen either.

Wills, NYSAC, Greb, Willard, Montreal were all pawns used by Kearns to keep New York at a distance, because that kept Rickard at a distanced.

What proof do I have?

Dempsey ended up in Montana. That should tell you something.

I need some clarification. Can you please just answer the questions without any excess fat?


The events we are talking about took place in 1922.

Who promoted the Dempsey Firpo fight in 1923? And who was Dempsey's manager at the time?

[travestyny]

OK you just tried to pull 1925-26 out your ass. You know, I know, Ghost knows, that is a horse of a different color.

You're distracting from the argument at hand.

It was: Was Montreal ever really for real? Was its Dempsey's fault it didn't happen?

Stick to the debate, no sneaking off to 1926.

Totaly different debate.

He claimed it was Kearns fault. It's indeed fair to state when Kearns was fired, Dempsey still did not make this fight. Or what am I missing?


Why wouldn't Montreal be for real? Of course it was Dempsey's fault. They offered him the fight and he declined saying he couldn't get in shape. They said they would push it back, he still declined. How can it not be his fault?