Why Does Jack Johnson Get a Pass on Opposition while Marciano Does Not?

[Mr.MojoRisin']

From my understanding, he refused to fight them because he was still waiting for his chance at the championship and refused to get stepped over. But if you want to paint that as a duck, sure. Go for it.

If Wills fought those guys then his claim to the title would have been even great and undeniable. The money would have been there too. He ducked those guys. They were top contenders and instead of fighting them he fought old fat Langford, old Jeanette, Jack Thompson who as a Dempsey sparring partner, Bill Tate who was a Dempsey sparring partner, old Sam Mcvea, Dempsey's leftovers in Fred Fulton, Dempsey leftovers in a past prime old Gunboat Smith, Denver Ed Martin who turned pro in the previous century (lol), and Dempsey's leftovers in Firpo who Wills couldn't even ko.

So his opponents comfortably fit into 3 categories: old men, Dempsey sparring partners, or Dempsey leftovers...LOL

And Dempsey ducked this guy? Not a chance! Wills didn't even deserve a sniff at the title.

If you want to say he ducked Tunney, then by all means go for it. I doubt that would mean he had Dempsey in the bag, though. If the fight didn't happen since 1919 and Dempsey breached a contract, not sure why a fight with Tunney would have done the job.

If he beat Tunney then they would have had to give him a shot. But he couldn't beat ANY of the top contenders of the 20s. He wouldn't go near them! He was scared!

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Well I didn't see the problem with cheaper tickets for working class people. Not sure why that was a breaking point except perhaps to pad Rickard's pockets more...?

Rickard was a greedy SOB. But I think what I'm getting at is how much out of Wills and Dempsey's control negotiations were.

[travestyny]

If Wills fought those guys then his claim to the title would have been even great and undeniable. The money would have been there too. He ducked those guys. They were top contenders and instead of fighting them he fought old fat Langford, old Jeanette, Jack Thompson who as a Dempsey sparring partner, Bill Tate who was a Dempsey sparring partner, old Sam Mcvea, Dempsey's leftovers in Fred Fulton, Dempsey leftovers in a past prime old Gunboat Smith, Denver Ed Martin who turned pro in the previous century (lol), and Dempsey's leftovers in Firpo who Wills couldn't even ko.

So his opponents comfortably fit into 3 categories: old men, Dempsey sparring partners, or Dempsey leftovers...LOL

And Dempsey ducked this guy? Not a chance! Wills didn't even deserve a sniff at the title.



If he beat Tunney then they would have had to give him a shot. But he couldn't beat ANY of the top contenders of the 20s. He wouldn't go near them! He was scared!

Go read this:


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


It will answer all of your questions regarding Dempsey, Tunney, Wills, etc. Also shows you are off base. I don't have the energy to type it out.

[travestyny]

Rickard was a greedy SOB. But I think what I'm getting at is how much out of Wills and Dempsey's control negotiations were.

But could he have done more instead of simply complying? He claims he could have with the quotation that I sent you. Perhaps I'm giving him too much blame, but perhaps you are giving him too little. I'm willing to meet in the middle on that. How about you?

[Mr.MojoRisin']

But could he have done more instead of simply complying? He claims he could have with the quotation that I sent you. Perhaps I'm giving him too much blame, but perhaps you are giving him too little. I'm willing to meet in the middle on that. How about you?

That sounds fair.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Go read this:


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


It will answer all of your questions regarding Dempsey, Tunney, Wills, etc. Also shows you are off base. I don't have the energy to type it out.

I wasn't reading anything I didn't already know until I got to the point about Bill Brennan. The article claims Brennan was well ahead on the scorecards when Dempsey ended it in the 12th. That's blatantly a lie. For one, the author of that article probably didn't even see the footage or the live bout. The footage shows Dempsey proving to be Brennan's master every step and the newspapermen that were actually there only gave Brennan a couple rounds.

The Canadian Press Service reported: "The champion proved to be Brennan's master in nearly every stage of the bout."


Here's a newspaper account of the fight only giving Brennan TWO rounds. This fight was NOT close.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,2568681&hl=en

They also say Billy Miske was dragged out of retirement which was blatantly false as he had fought 3 months prior and fought 9 times in 1919. He went on to go undefeated for his next 20 or so fights before losing a decision to Gibbons.

Carpentier was not a blown up light heavyweight, he weighed 172. He WAS a light heavyweight in that fight. He didn't nearly drop Dempsey either, he staggered him for a split second then Dempsey recovered quickly. He hit Dempsey on the chin with his right hand which was his most infamous punch and probably one of the best right hands in the history of the heavyweight division. He didn't gas out either, nothing on the film suggests he gassed. I've never heard that either except from your source.

But I do want to add:

"I never blamed Jack,", he said', "I'm sure if he had his way, I'd have gotten the fight."

Overall if this is the type of source your looking at then I'm not surprised you hate Dempsey and argue so strongly against him. Do you see that this source is blatantly lying?

[travestyny]

I wasn't reading anything I didn't already know until I got to the point about Bill Brennan. The article claims Brennan was well ahead on the scorecards when Dempsey ended it in the 12th. That's blatantly a lie. For one, the author of that article probably didn't even see the footage or the live bout. The footage shows Dempsey proving to be Brennan's master every step and the newspapermen that were actually there only gave Brennan a couple rounds.

The Canadian Press Service reported: "The champion proved to be Brennan's master in nearly every stage of the bout."


Here's a newspaper account of the fight only giving Brennan TWO rounds. This fight was NOT close.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,2568681&hl=en

They also say Billy Miske was dragged out of retirement which was blatantly false as he had fought 3 months prior and fought 9 times in 1919. He went on to go undefeated for his next 20 or so fights before losing a decision to Gibbons.

Carpentier was not a blown up light heavyweight, he weighed 172. He WAS a light heavyweight in that fight. He didn't nearly drop Dempsey either, he staggered him for a split second then Dempsey recovered quickly. He hit Dempsey on the chin with his right hand which was his most infamous punch and probably one of the best right hands in the history of the heavyweight division. He didn't gas out either, nothing on the film suggests he gassed. I've never heard that either except from your source.

But I do want to add:




Overall if this is the type of source your looking at then I'm not surprised you hate Dempsey and argue so strongly against him. Do you see that this source is blatantly lying?

Dude, you're going way overboard for no apparent reason. I referred you to that to see what was said about Dempsey, Wills, Tunney, etc. I don't know about the backstory of who was taken out of retirement or what have you. That was never my concern.

Also someone, perhaps you, has already posted the quotation about Wills not blaming Dempsey, and I have no problem with that as I've stated before. It doesn't change the fact that he breached a contract to get out of fighting him. It was also a fact that his license was suspended in NY for not fighting him. That seems like a lot for someone who wanted him since 1919 and was willing to fight him in a winner take all match for a grand total of $300,000.

The article that I referred you to didn't say anything bad about Dempsey at all. On Boxrec it does mention your quotation about him being "Brennan's mater," but I think it also says something like it was Dempsey's toughest match. Perhaps it was a difference of opinion, but I don't think the article was trying to bash Dempsey.

And I think what you are misconstruing what it said about Carpentier. I think it means he was a light heavy fighting at heavy, which is obvious since he was fighting for the heavyweight title.


As for Miske, it might be accurate.

Miske fought this bout while suffering from Bright's Disease, which is an inflammation of the structures in the kidney that produce urine. To quote from the biography Billy Miske: The St. Paul Thunderbolt: "A number of years later, in his autobiography, Dempsey would comment, 'During the fight, I began to feel that Billy wasn't giving me as tough a battle as I had expected. He did not seem like his old self.'"
In a 1926 newspaper article, Jim Corbett discussed the 1920 Dempsey-Miske bout. T quote from the article: "Before Billy Miske was taken sick—back in the days when Billy really was good—he was a fast, clever man. And he went the distance twice with Dempsey. When Bill had slipped and had lost his speed, Dempsey fought him the third time—and knocked him out. But Jack wasn't fighting a fast, clever man that day."

and this:

In 1916, Miske's doctor had given him five years to live -- "provided you quit boxing and take ca re of yourself." Miske shrugged off the advice, but in 1920 he retired and began selling cars.

'Get Me a Fight Anyway'

Within five months, his business had lost $55,000. Miske needed money. Guaranteed $25,000, he fought Jack Dempsey for the heavyweight title in Benton Harbor, Mich., on Labor Day.

http://www.harrygreb.com/billymiskebiopage.html

So maybe you went overboard for no reason. Relax.

Also, never ever said that I hate Dempsey. Am I allowed to discuss anything that can be perceived as negative without being accused of calling him a racist, claiming blacks are superior, and just flat out hating him? Is it possible?

[Mr.MojoRisin']

The article that I referred you to didn't say anything bad about Dempsey at all. On Boxrec it does mention your quotation about him being "Brennan's mater," but I think it also says something like it was Dempsey's toughest match. Perhaps it was a difference of opinion, but I don't think the article was trying to bash Dempsey.

And I think what you are misconstruing what it said about Carpentier. I think it means he was a light heavy fighting at heavy, which is obvious since he was fighting for the heavyweight title.


As for Miske, it might be accurate.



and this:




So maybe you went overboard for no reason. Relax.

1. The article saying it was Dempsey's toughest match was written in 1964. Over 40 years after the fight had happened. The article written when the fight happened said it was pretty much one sided.

2. They said straight up that Carpentier was a blown up light heavyweight, that he nearly dropped Dempsey, and that he gassed in the 4th which is why he lost. ALL of which are completely false. To be a blown up anything you have to weigh OVER said blown up weight. Carpentier was fighting at his best weight.

3. Miske was sick and probably not at his best against Dempsey but he wasn't dragged out of retirement. He fought a guy 3 months prior to Dempsey and went on a winning streak beating several top fighters. Whatever condition he was in he was good enough to beat top fighters. I think that website you linked is just trying to portray Miske in the best light tbh.

I didn't go overboard there's just stuff that's blatantly false. You need to admit that, let's hear it.

[travestyny]

2. They said straight up that Carpentier was a blown up light heavyweight, that he nearly dropped Dempsey, and that he gassed in the 4th which is why he lost. ALL of which are completely false. To be a blown up anything you have to weigh OVER said blown up weight. Carpentier was fighting at his best weight.

Like I said, I think you are confusing what they meant. He was a light heavy fighting for the heavy. I think you are agreeing with the point they are trying to make, but disagreeing on the definition of "blown up." I have no problem with that.

3. Miske was sick and probably not at his best against Dempsey but he wasn't dragged out of retirement. He fought a guy 3 months prior to Dempsey and went on a winning streak beating several top fighters. Whatever condition he was in he was good enough to beat top fighters. I think that website you linked is just trying to portray Miske in the best light tbh.

I didn't go overboard there's just stuff that's blatantly false. You need to admit that, let's hear it.

I just posted you a quotation that says he indeed did retire. Said he retired in 1920 to sell cars and came back to fight Dempsey after the business tanked. So now that's two separate sources that say you are wrong.

1. The article saying it was Dempsey's toughest match was written in 1964. Over 40 years after the fight had happened. The article written when the fight happened said it was pretty much one sided.

Well, another source also mentions this, and I've seen it referred to as the greatest biography on Dempsey ever written. It might have even been you that posted information from this book here in the past, but I don't know for sure. I don't really have an interest in going back to check that right now. But check this out:



Jack Dempsey: The Manassa Mauler by Randy Roberts

After the 11th round, Kearns informed Dempsey that only a knockout would save the title.

Told you to relax yourself.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Like I said, I think you are confusing what they meant. He was a light heavy fighting for the heavy. I think you are agreeing with the point they are trying to make, but disagreeing on the definition of "blown up." I have no problem with that.

You're completely ducking everything else and inserting what YOU think THEY mean't. The fact still remains that what they said was OBJECTIVELY false. Carpentier did not nearly floor Dempsey, Carpentier did not gas in the 4th round. That's objectively false what they're saying. You can't get around it. I want you to admit that they blatantly lied.

I just posted you a quotation that says he indeed did retire. Said he retired in 1920 to sell cars and came back to fight Dempsey after the business tanked. So now that's two separate sources that say you are wrong.

You're source is lying yet again!

1920-06-11 Jack Moran Nicollet Park, Minneapolis

Did this fight happen or not?? According to your source it didn't!

Well, another source also mentions this, and I've seen it referred to as the greatest biography on Dempsey ever written. It might have even been you that posted information from this book here in the past, but I don't know for sure. I don't really have an interest in going back to check that right now. But check this out:



Jack Dempsey: The Manassa Mauler by Randy Roberts



Told you to relax yourself.

Do you honestly think that a guy who NEVER saw the Brennan fight fully nor was he even BORN when Dempsey was an active fighter is more credible than newspapermen that saw the fight live?

So far the ONLY sources that you have provided that say Brennan was up on the scorecards are a 1964 article and a crappy book written by a now nothing who wasn't even alive when Dempsey was fighting.

I think I just obliterated whatever credibility you had on the topic.