Dempsey vs. Marciano

[HOUDINI563]

Wills was not a bum. Stupid comment. He was the No 1 contender for many years and deserving of a title shot. IMO he would not have lasted more than three rounds with prime Dempsey.

Fleischer was at ringside for most all of the important hwt championship bout from Johnson to Ali. He was also a former amateur boxer. He was at ringside for Johnson - Jeffries as an example. His book 50 years at ringside which I have an original copy is one of the best books concerning boxing history ever written.

[travestyny]

Unless you come up with Dempsey’s entire testimony you don’t know what those reasons are. You have a judges opinion which is not enough. If you TRUELY were interested in the truth you would not jump to the worst case conclusion. Thus yor comments can only be interpreted as a purposeful slam against Dempsey. Also your interpretation of what occurred with Dempsey drawing and recanting the color line is completely off base. Complete distortion of the history.

Houdini, I've shown you over and over what was Dempsey's reasoning for bailing on this contract, yet you refuse to accept it. I've shown you the letter that he wrote to the promoter, I've shown you statements that he has made to the media, I've shown you the court's rejection of Dempsey's defense. It is you that refuses to accept his reasoning, and in your own head, you seem to be thinking there must be some other reason that he broke this contract.

You yourself in this very thread have even repeated his reasoning, but as I've pointed out that it makes absolutely no sense at all, you are now going with the ..."Oh..well we need his testimony in court" to duck away from his non-sensical defense. As if the court, in their summary of the issue, would leave out the discussion of his defense.

Dempsey also has gone on record claiming that he won this court case, which is a complete and utter lie. He LOST this court case, but only for nominal damages. An injunction was issued to prevent the Tunney fight and he was found to be liable for damages, however his team was able to get around the injunction and the damages were found to be only nominal because it was impossible to prove how much money the Wills fight would bring in.

It has all be laid out right there for you to see, but you refuse to accept it because you want to believe what you want to believe. It's not me making up or distorting anything. The proof is in the pudding. If you choose to remain ignorant of the facts, then that's on you.

[GhostofDempsey]

The other thing is that Johnson was an over the hill 37 year old champion in poor shape due to high living in Europe for so many years. Willard would never have beaten prime Johnson. Even with all this had the fight need scheduled for 20 rounds Johnson would have won the decision by a wide margin.

Maybe, maybe not. Of course you can't credit Johnson with a win over Jeffries either based on who was washed up and past prime. But the fact remains, Johnson favored much smaller opponents, which is why he continued to drink from the well of guys like Jeanette, McVey, dozens of times and he really made a name for himself fighting much smaller or overrated boxers. Tommy Burns was 5'7", Ketchel was a MW--small by even today's standards. Look at the records of his opponents, how many of them were making their pro debut when Johnson was already a seasoned veteran?

American sportswriters liked to romanticize some of these guys, Johnson especially. He was big, strong, and quick on his feet. He had a distinct advantage over most of his opponents. He did indeed draw the color line on his own race once he was champ. So looking back on his career, what were really his best wins? Langford--another MW who was outweighed by almost 50 pounds?

[Zmerai Khan]

If you need evidence that Harry Wills wasn't a bum, you shouldn't be discussing boxing.

You're right. I should just take your word for it.

[Zmerai Khan]

Maybe, maybe not. Of course you can't credit Johnson with a win over Jeffries either based on who was washed up and past prime. But the fact remains, Johnson favored much smaller opponents, which is why he continued to drink from the well of guys like Jeanette, McVey, dozens of times and he really made a name for himself fighting much smaller or overrated boxers. Tommy Burns was 5'7", Ketchel was a MW--small by even today's standards. Look at the records of his opponents, how many of them were making their pro debut when Johnson was already a seasoned veteran?

American sportswriters liked to romanticize some of these guys, Johnson especially. He was big, strong, and quick on his feet. He had a distinct advantage over most of his opponents. He did indeed draw the color line on his own race once he was champ. So looking back on his career, what were really his best wins? Langford--another MW who was outweighed by almost 50 pounds?

This sums it up. Beautifully.

[Zmerai Khan]

But to play your little game, who has a better resume? Harry Wills or Jack Dempsey?

Call me crazy, but I'd have to go with the one that actually beat Firpo and Sharkey, and faced Tunney.

[HOUDINI563]

Again. There are many details in Dempsey’s testimony that were very relevant to DEMPSEY. They may or may not have been rejected from a legal standpoint but really that does not matter. We need to see all those details, his mindset, before you can jump to the conclusions you have jumped to. Again no new evidence has been found that changes the fact that Dempsey was exonerated of all blame nearly 100 years ago. Wills also exonerated Dempsey of all blame in the end.

[Zmerai Khan]

Wills was not a bum. Stupid comment. He was the No 1 contender for many years and deserving of a title shot. IMO he would not have lasted more than three rounds with prime Dempsey.

Fleischer was at ringside for most all of the important hwt championship bout from Johnson to Ali. He was also a former amateur boxer. He was at ringside for Johnson - Jeffries as an example. His book 50 years at ringside which I have an original copy is one of the best books concerning boxing history ever written.

There's so much wrong here, I could go on for days.

Fleisher was a reporter, Ali was a fighter. The greatest Heavyweight champion of all-time, in fact. Ali replicated Gene Tunney's style. That tells me way more than a reporter's flawed/failing/biased memory.

This is bigger than Nat Fleischer. Attorneys know that eyewitness testimony is very flawed. Historians even take a scientific approach by working to DISPROVE eyewitness accounts to get the most accurate impression possible of events. In my field - pharma/dme - placebos are used regularly because human prescription is flawed.

There's footage of Johnson and his opponents. He struggled with Ketchel - it wasn't a fixed fight. His own recollection of his fights has been proven false.

[travestyny]

Call me crazy, but I'd have to go with the one that actually beat Firpo and Sharkey, and faced Tunney.

Ok crazy

I'll go with the one that beat Firpo, beat and didn't run from Jeannette, chased Dempsey around, beat McVey, and at 21 years old wasn't afraid to face and beat Langford a bunch of times

[travestyny]

Again. There are many details in Dempsey’s testimony that were very relevant to DEMPSEY. They may or may not have been rejected from a legal standpoint but really that does not matter. We need to see all those details, his mindset, before you can jump to the conclusions you have jumped to. Again no new evidence has been found that changes the fact that Dempsey was exonerated of all blame nearly 100 years ago. Wills also exonerated Dempsey of all blame in the end.

And again, you are refusing to recognize that they would have fought had it not been for Dempsey's defense that a court of law didn't buy at all. That's where it seems like we disagree. What do you imagine could have been a worthy defense for him breaking this valid contract, because I can't think of even one!

And you are placing way too much emphasis on what Wills said at the end, but ignoring what he said when everything was going down...that being, that Dempsey ducked him for years.

Wills' managers also never bought Dempsey's excuses, but I'm sure that means nothing to you.


But yea...please give me even one valid defense....anything that you can pull out of your head within the realm of possibility, that you think would justify Dempsey breaking a valid contract to fight the only man that he claims he wanted to fight since he became champion. I'm all ears!


You can pretend to be Dempsey. Let me help you start:

"I signed this contract because I thought it was a great deal to face the ONLY man I've EVER wanted to face since becoming champion. I then decided to break this valid contract because...."