was dempsey a bum?

[travestyny]

- -what U minder name wh speak for U?

Ellerbee wannabe handle TUE 51-0 twitter and Facebook.

Dempsey spoke for you when he said, "If it Wills, then no!"

[QueensburyRules]

Dempsey spoke for you when he said, "If it Wills, then no!"

- -That why Jack sign umpteen contracts to fight Wills?

Where U minder?

[travestyny]

- -That why Jack sign umpteen contracts to fight Wills?

Where U minder?

Did he break umpteen contracts?

I know of one that sent him running away. But no one wants to talk about it


Another one with no date or venue. Eddie Hearn seemed to like that idea

[HOUDINI563]

As I wrote a year ago. IT DOES NOT MATTER.

What does matter is Dempseys mindset, his thoughts as to why he made the decisions he made. A judges decision does not provide the answer.

However it is mind numbing that you would ignore the known history, 100 years of history, and instead make up a story by connecting dots from specific articles. THEN form a conclusion that is COMPLETELY AGAINST THE WELL KNOWN HISTORY.

It is absolutely well understood as fact that Dempsey was not a racist. It is also absolutely understood as fact that Dempsey was unafraid to fight Wills. The entire idea is ludicrous. Dempsey LOVED fighting large slower opponents. If anything his difficulty was with the smart boxers such as Tunney.

Study up! You are a complete embarrassment.

[travestyny]

As I wrote a year ago. IT DOES NOT MATTER.

What does matter is Dempseys mindset, his thoughts as to why he made the decisions he made. A judges decision does not provide the answer.

Oh I get it. As long as a boxer claims he wasn't ducking, then there could be no duck.

Congratulations. We've just settled the ducking conversation for all of the past and years to come.

Actually, I'm sure it doesn't work this way.

However it is mind numbing that you would ignore the known history, 100 years of history, and instead make up a story by connecting dots from specific articles. THEN form a conclusion that is COMPLETELY AGAINST THE WELL KNOWN HISTORY.

It is absolutely well understood as fact that Dempsey was not a racist. It is also absolutely understood as fact that Dempsey was unafraid to fight Wills. The entire idea is ludicrous. Dempsey LOVED fighting large slower opponents. If anything his difficulty was with the smart boxers such as Tunney.

Study up! You are a complete embarrassment.

ANSWER THE QUESTION AND STOP DUCKING IT!


1. Did Dempsey break a valid contract (that would make him more money than the Tunney fight, I might add) to fight Harry Wills?

2. Did the promoters live up to their end of the agreement?


Why do these questions scare you. Are you going to step up? Maybe your 100 year old well known history has the answers to these questions.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OR ADMIT THAT YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT ENDS YOUR BS.

[HOUDINI563]

Again you point to irrelevant claims while ignoring all the known history. It does not matter if he did. What matters is why he did. You ignore the why. Tell everyone why you ignore all the known history. Dempsey was exonerated 100 years ago so why are all your posts pointing the the exact opposite conclusion? Answer. Last chance.

[travestyny]

Again you point to irrelevant claims while ignoring all the known history. It does not matter if he did. What matters is why he did. You ignore the why. Tell everyone why you ignore all the known history. Dempsey was exonerated 100 years ago so why are all your posts pointing the the exact opposite conclusion? Answer. Last chance.

So wait...let me get this straight.

A contract agreed to and signed is now irrelevant with regards to a fight being made.

Your posts are getting more and more ludicrous.



Ok, tell us why he broke the contract. Let's hear this 100 year old truth. I'm all ears.

[HOUDINI563]

I am asking you once again. Why is every one of your posts 100% diametrically opposed to the known history? You do know the known history exonerated Dempsey 100 years ago? Why is none of this reflected in the information you are posting? We all await your response.

[travestyny]

I am asking you once again. Why is every one of your posts 100% diametrically opposed to the known history? You do know the known history exonerated Dempsey 100 years ago? Why is none of this reflected in the information you are posting? We all await your response.

What known history? I just gave you the known history and you won't even talk about it.

1. There was a contract that was signed and BROKEN.

2. The promoter kept his end of the deal.

3. Harry Will kept his end of the deal.

4. Jack Dempsey ran away.


Prove it wrong. Simple. This is HISTORY!


YOU WON'T ANSWER EVEN ONE QUESTION FROM ME. ASK YOURSELF WHY! Yet you're asking me about known history, and I'M TELLING YOU ABOUT KNOWN HISTORY.


There was no exoneration. The only court that was involved here is the one that said Dempsey broke that contract

[HOUDINI563]

Wrong! I will give you one more chance. Then you are going on ignore. Why is your every single post taking a 100% diametric viewpoint to very well known history?