Dempsey vs. Marciano

[travestyny]

You need to get hold of Dempsey’s testimony so we know his side of the story. All you have is a judges opinion which does not provide Dempsey’s side of the argument.

Ok, so you want to know Dempsey's side of the argument. Now you tell me what makes sense. Here is his side of the argument. This is the letter that he wrote to the promoter.

"BM Colorado Springs Colo July 10th 1926

B. E. Clements

President Chicago Coliseum Club Chgo

Entirely too busy training for my coming Tunney match to waste time on insurance representatives stop as you have no contract suggest you stop kidding yourself and me also. --Jack Dempsey."

His side of the argument is that there was no valid contract. Why is he saying that? He is saying it because he claims he was due $125,000 on March 13th.

The only problem is that he signed the contract on March 13th and accepted $10 consideration on that date.

Chicago Coliseum Club, a corporation, as plaintiff, brought its action against William Harrison Dempsey, known as Jack Dempsey, to recover damages for breach of a written contract executed March 13, 1926, but bearing date of March 6 of that year.

By the terms of the agreement Dempsey was to receive $10, receipt of which was acknowledged, and the plaintiff further agreed to pay to Dempsey the sum of $300,000 on the 5th day of August 1926, — $500,000 in cash at least 10 days before the date fixed for the contest, and a sum equal to 50 per cent of the net profits over and above the sum of $2,000,000 in the event the gate receipts should exceed that amount. In addition the defendant was to receive 50 per cent of the net revenue derived from moving picture concessions or royalties received by the plaintiff, and defendant agreed to have his life and health insured in favor of the plaintiff in a manner and at a place to be designated by the plaintiff. Defendant further agreed not to engage in any boxing match after the date of the agreement and prior to the date on which the contest was to be held. Certain agreements previously entered into by the defendant with one Floyd Fitzsimmons for a Dempsey-Wills boxing match were declared to be void and of no force and effect. Certain other mutual agreements were contained in the written contract which are not necessary in a consideration of this case.

https://casetext.com/case/chicago-co...club-v-dempsey

So there you have it. Now you tell me. Who signs a contract and accepts $10 in consideration on THE VERY SAME DAY that they claim they were due $125,000????


When you can make sense of that, you let me know, yea?

By the way, the court disagreed with Dempsey, stating that he was wrong. There was a valid contract. And in accordance with exactly what the contract stated, the $300,000 was waiting for Dempsey on August 5th, 1926. The promoter kept their side of the deal. Dempsey bailed.

Also, remember Dempsey's own words, that Wills was the only man he wanted to fight since 1919. Hmmm.

[HOUDINI563]

There are no details. Where is his testimony during the court case? There is tons of background information leading to Dempsey fighting Tunney instead of Wills that’s missing from YOUR proposition. Suggest you find it before making disparaging remarks concerning one of boxing’s ATG hwt champions.

The bottom line however is Wills in later years never blamed Dempsey. Instead he stated that “ if it were up to Jack the fight I am sure would have occurred”.

Here is another great article that more clearly provides a feel for the timeline which you conveniently overlook:

http://heavyweightaction.com/PDFs/19...%20Article.pdf

[travestyny]

There are no details. Where is his testimony during the court case? There is tons of background information leading to Dempsey fighting Tunney instead of Wills that’s missing from YOUR proposition. Suggest you find it before making disparaging remarks concerning one of boxing’s ATG hwt champions.

The bottom line however is Wills in later years never blamed Dempsey. Instead he stated that “ if it were up to Jack the fight I am sure would have occurred”.

Here is another great article that more clearly provides a feel for the timeline which you conveniently overlook:

http://heavyweightaction.com/PDFs/19...%20Article.pdf

Why are you ducking all of the information I've given you.


You want his testimony in court. Here it is:

We are unable to conceive upon what theory the defendant could contend that there was no contract, as it appears to be admitted in the proceeding here and bears his signature and the amounts involved are sufficiently large to have created a rather lasting impression on the mind of anyone signing such an agreement.

https://casetext.com/case/chicago-co...club-v-dempsey

Clearly what he told the court is that there was no valid contract. And the court says that he was wrong.

You have any information showing that he was right in his contention? I don't think you do.


And still no word from you about why he ducked Joe Jeannette in New York City if it were not because he was a "colored" man.

Here is the quotation from the article that Jack Dempsey is credited for himself:

“Sit tight, Jack,” I advised him. “Box Bond or nobody.”
He thrust a bandaged hand into mine.
“I‟ll fight any white man they put on,” he growled huskily, “but I didn‟t agree to fight a colored boy.”

So what's your excuse for that one? Don't tell me no one wanted to see it, when the crowd was calling him a "Quitter," "Big Bum," and "Yeller dog."

[HOUDINI563]

That’s not Dempsey’s testimony. Unless you provide Dempsey’s testimonial all you have is a judges decision. Worthless. You need to understand the time line of events which you either are avoiding or are ignorant of. I say you’re ignorant. Study up friend. All you sound like is a Dempsey hater throwing out snippets from a long well known history in an effort to tarnish the mans name. Very amateurish stuff. STUDY UP!

I’ve told you the Jeanette story is over 100 years old and it’s very understood. What I wrote is the historic truth and what any knowledgeable boxing historian will tell you.

[HOUDINI563]

Great article. This is the type historical info you should be reading. You’re credibility will improve as your knowledge of boxing history improves.

http://heavyweightaction.com/PDFs/19...%20Article.pdf

[Anthony342]

Why are you ducking all of the information I've given you.


You want his testimony in court. Here it is:



Clearly what he told the court is that there was no valid contract. And the court says that he was wrong.

You have any information showing that he was right in his contention? I don't think you do.


And still no word from you about why he ducked Joe Jeannette in New York City if it were not because he was a "colored" man.

Here is the quotation from the article that Jack Dempsey is credited for himself:



So what's your excuse for that one? Don't tell me no one wanted to see it, when the crowd was calling him a "Quitter," "Big Bum," and "Yeller dog."

Why did Dempsey duck a black contender for the heavyweight title? Well that's pretty simple. Because after Jack Johnson, most of the general public didn't want another black heavyweight champion for a long time, at least not like Johnson. Isn't that why there was a Colored Heavyweight Championship? It wasn't until the more gentlemanly Joe Louis came along that people were more willing to accept a black champion finally. Just because that crowd was booing, do you really think if Dempsey had lost the title to this Jeanette guy that he would have been universally cheered or as widely accepted as Louis? Maybe, maybe not. But odds are, Dempsey didn't want to take that chance. Or maybe Dempsey just thought this guy could beat him and didn't want to risk losing his title to him. Hell, he spent a bunch of time in Hollywood so he could be champion for longer before finally coming back to fight Tunney 3 years after fighting Firpo. He had enough money and started living the good life. He was pretty much done mentally and probably figured screw this, I'm done with boxing by 1926 or so anyway.

[travestyny]

That’s not Dempsey’s testimony. Unless you provide Dempsey’s testimonial all you have is a judges decision. Worthless. You need to understand the time line of events which you either are avoiding or are ignorant of. I say you’re ignorant. Study up friend. All you sound like is a Dempsey hater throwing out snippets from a long well known history in an effort to tarnish the mans name. Very amateurish stuff. STUDY UP!

I’ve told you the Jeanette story is over 100 years old and it’s very understood. What I wrote is the historic truth and what any knowledgeable boxing historian will tell you.

You're full of shlt

I have Dempsey saying straight up that there was no valid contract. Yet you are pretending to be blind because it doesn't fit your agenda.

You get no respect because all you can do is duck the facts. It's pathetic.

Simple questions for you to answer.


1. Did Dempsey break a valid contract to fight Harry Wills?

2. Did Dempsey duck Jeannette because he is a black man.


Let's see if you find your balls to answer. Study up, my friend

[travestyny]

Why did Dempsey duck a black contender for the heavyweight title? Well that's pretty simple. Because after Jack Johnson, most of the general public didn't want another black heavyweight champion for a long time, at least not like Johnson. Isn't that why there was a Colored Heavyweight Championship? It wasn't until the more gentlemanly Joe Louis came along that people were more willing to accept a black champion finally. Just because that crowd was booing, do you really think if Dempsey had lost the title to this Jeanette guy that he would have been universally cheered or as widely accepted as Louis? Maybe, maybe not. But odds are, Dempsey didn't want to take that chance. Or maybe Dempsey just thought this guy could beat him and didn't want to risk losing his title to him. Hell, he spent a bunch of time in Hollywood so he could be champion for longer before finally coming back to fight Tunney 3 years after fighting Firpo. He had enough money and started living the good life. He was pretty much done mentally and probably figured screw this, I'm done with boxing by 1926 or so anyway.

Exactly the bolded and that's all I've been saying...kinda...moreso about him not wanting to take the chance. I don't know if he was afraid of Jeannette or afraid of Wills. What I think, and this is only my opinion, is that maybe he didn't want to risk losing to a black fighter because of how it would affect his legacy. He was well aware of how it affected Jim Jefferies' legacy.


But you should know, he wasn't in danger of losing a title to Jeannette. It was an exhibition and before Dempsey was champion. All information clearly indicates that he wanted no part of him because he was black. Beyond that, people can give their own assessment of the situation.

[travestyny]

Great article. This is the type historical info you should be reading. You’re credibility will improve as your knowledge of boxing history improves.

http://heavyweightaction.com/PDFs/19...%20Article.pdf

You are the one that needs to stop looking at shlt with rose tinted glasses just because your idol was not exactly whom you thought he was. You're like a 16 year old girl swooning over a backstreet boy.

The facts are out there. Too bad you aren't brave enough to even assess them. It truly is pathetic.

Let's ask you again.

1. Did Dempsey break a valid contract to fight the only man that he wanted to fight since 1919, according to him?

2. Did Dempsey duck Joe Jeannette in NYC because Jeannette was a black man.


Still waiting to see if you have the balls to answer.

[HOUDINI563]

It does not matter IF he broke a contract or not. You are so intent on degrading Dempsey you pull snippets from history and ignore the big picture as well as the details. Your efforts are laughable by those that know and understand the VERY WELL KNOWN history. Study up as what you post is little more than a joke. Wills himself was interviewed a few years before his death and he stated that IF IT WERE UP TO DEMPSEY THE BOUT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED. That’s the man himself laying no blame whatsoever at Dempsey’s feet. Again you need to either study up or stop being so disingenuous. It’s either one or the other.