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

[travestyny]

We have dispelled the myth that Dempsey was ducking Wills. I believe this is the fifth thread someone has argued this and each time he comes up short. No one has yet to disclaim that Johnson himself drew the color line and avoided Langford, McVea, Jeannette, and Wills while HW champion.

In reference to the thread topic, Johnson gets a pass for drawing the color line and ducking black fighters while champion (after they gained more experience and weren't overmatched) but Dempsey is held to a higher standard by some who wish to discredit him.

Meanwhile Marciano gets called overrated and the more I watch him the more impressed I am with what he accomplished. The more I watch and dissect Johnson, the less impressed I am.

Who is it that gives Johnson a pass for the color line? I think someone said it was because the money was very low to see a black fighter face another black fighter. You're welcome to disprove that.

Look at the deal that Dempsey was promised for Wills in the court case I presented. HE SIGNED THAT CONTRACT and the money was substantial.

And you're as big of a liar as Dempsy. How many times do you say people failed or information was debunked, only to hide behind your ignore function and not provide any proof? I guess you are going to say that the court was not legit, huh? That's your usual gimmick. That I provide undocumented sources, which is utter bullshlt. This time it's a court of law, and you're still lying.

[IMG]https://media.*****.com/media/TUHInIQM4bXBS/*****.gif[/IMG]

[Dempsey-Louis]

Who is it that gives Johnson a pass for the color line? I think someone said it was because the money was very low to see a black face a black.

Look at the deal that Dempsey was promised for Wills in the court case I presented. HE SIGNED THAT CONTRACT and the money was substantial.

But not as good as he could get from Rickard, it really is that simple. Tunney and Rickard was the right fight.

In fact we would find out later that year that Wills was a finished fighter, being manhandled by Sharkey in October '26; Wills had to pull a Tyson and quit by getting himself DQed. He was by accounts taking a beating.

If Dempsey had taken Wills in '26 instead of Tunney he probably would have stayed champion.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Who is it that gives Johnson a pass for the color line? I think someone said it was because the money was very low to see a black fighter face another black fighter. You're welcome to disprove that.

Look at the deal that Dempsey was promised for Wills in the court case I presented. HE SIGNED THAT CONTRACT and the money was substantial.

And you're as big of a liar as Dempsy. How many times do you say people failed or information was debunked, only to hide behind your ignore function and not provide any proof? I guess you are going to say that the court was not legit, huh? That's your usual gimmick. That I provide undocumented sources, which is utter bullshlt. This time it's a court of law, and you're still lying.

[IMG]https://media.*****.com/media/TUHInIQM4bXBS/*****.gif[/IMG]

Calling people liars now?

Whoa. You may be taking this whole thing too seriously.

Take a break. Have a meal. Enjoy life, bruh.

[GhostofDempsey]

Calling people liars now?

Whoa. You may be taking this whole thing too seriously.

Take a break. Have a meal. Enjoy life, bruh.

Typical. He doesn't deal in facts, only conjecture and speculation. He will roam the desert for forty years trying to dig up dirt on Dempsey only to be proven wrong time and again. Great entertainment though. This is his 5th thread he has tried and failed. LMAO!

[travestyny]

But not as good as he could get from Rickard, it really is that simple. Tunney and Rickard was the right fight.

In fact we would find out later that year that Wills was a finished fighter, being manhandled by Sharkey in October '26; Wills had to pull a Tyson and quit by getting himself DQed. He was by accounts taking a beating.

If Dempsey had taken Wills in '26 instead of Tunney he probably would have stayed champion.

But again, the point is that Dempsey definitively broke a contract to get out of this fight. How does he claim he wanted one man since 1919 and make such a big hoopla over that in his statement, and then blatantly duck out of this fight? The contract situation is what makes it clear.

The one excuse I always read was that the money didn't come through. Now that we know the specifics of the contract that he signed, that excuse goes down the drain.

Again, I didn't want to even bother looking into this. I pretty much accepted that he wanted the fight. I was su****ious that he didn't but I was willing to accept it. Now I'm even less sure that he wanted it. He signed a contract and then broke it, and in the same month claimed he'd be willing to take a winner take all match for Wills. Makes no sense.

[travestyny]

Calling people liars now?

Whoa. You may be taking this whole thing too seriously.

Take a break. Have a meal. Enjoy life, bruh.

It's a fact that he lied repeatedly. Is it not? The court even found that he was lying. Don't blame me, bro!

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

Why did he lie that there was on contract when it was all stated clearly according to the court, hmmm?



Don't worry about me. I'm quite enjoying this thread. Now it seems Dempsey ducked Langford because he was scared, got ran out of NY by Joe Jeannette, and breached a contract to get away from Wills. It aint my fault!

[travestyny]

Typical. He doesn't deal in facts, only conjecture and speculation. He will roam the desert for forty years trying to dig up dirt on Dempsey only to be proven wrong time and again. Great entertainment though. This is his 5th thread he has tried and failed. LMAO!

LMAO. Just like I said.

So the court case isn't a fact? They just made that shlt all up, huh?


We both know this isn't entertainment for you. You're feeling hurt and that's why you've been making threads trying to discredit the black heavyweights from this time, Mayweather, and even Ali. Definitely in your feelings all about what is simply presented facts

You're the one who kept prodding to keep this beef going. I hope you're getting what you wanted I know I'm enjoying it!

[HOUDINI563]

It is well understood by historians that Dempseys comments in 1921 were due the Johnson going on record that he wanted a title shot. Period and end of story.

Dempsey won the case. You are missing a large part of the picture as the "injunction" mentioned in the documents did not stick. Dempsey fought Tunney shortly afterwards.

You need to understand the breath of history not snippets you pull from it to try to bolster a false argument.

The facts surrounding all of this have been understood for 80 years. Dempsey was exonerated long before any of us were born. Those are the facts.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

The facts of the case are pretty clear according to the court. He was to receive $300,000 on August 5th. It says this clearly. He breached the contract on July 10th.

Though the court allowed Dempsey to get off nearly scott free, don't get it twisted. The court clearly states that Dempsey signed the contract and should be held liable for some damages for pulling out of the fight and breaking the contract. I mean, the court even granted an injunction to stop Dempsey from fighting Tunney. After the promoter found out that they were only able to win back a measly amount, I'm sure they weren't worried about bringing Dempsey up on contempt charges.

It's right there. Why would Dempsey sign the contract saying he would receive the money August 5th if he was expecting to see the money earlier. That makes zero sense. Even the court says this clearly:

I'm not saying Dempsey didn't breach a contract or arguing for any sort of court decision either way. He very well may have breached the contract.

What I am arguing against is that Dempsey ducked Wills. If the promoter was going to pay Dempsey hundreds of thousands of dollars in a month, don't you think he should have been able to produce 25k? I think it's only reasonable. I mean would you be comfortable going into business with someone if they couldn't even produce a fraction of the goods they would be required to if you made a deal? I know I wouldn't. Dempsey had a history of making great money with Rickard and was being pressured by both Kearns and Rickard to fight Tunney instead of Wills so why wouldn't he go with the better dough?

[travestyny]

It is well understood by historians that Dempseys comments in 1921 were due the Johnson going on record that he wanted a title shot. Period and end of story.

This is false. His statements make it clear what he meant no matter how much squirming was done thereafter.

Dempsey won the case. You are missing a large part of the picture as the "injunction" mentioned in the documents did not stick. Dempsey fought Tunney shortly afterwards.

This is also false. Demspey did not "win" the case. Since the court made it clear that he breached the contract and would be held liable for nominal damages, that makes it clear he did not win. Furthermore, it was stated that they would have to take him to court for contempt after not following the injunction. So it's not about it not "sticking." They were less concerned with it after they realized that the damages they could get were nominal anyway.

You need to understand the breath of history not snippets you pull from it to try to bolster a false argument.

The facts surrounding all of this have been understood for 80 years. Dempsey was exonerated long before any of us were born. Those are the facts.

The facts are staring you in the face. That you want to duck and dodge from them is your problem. The court made it clear that he breached the contract and issued the injunction. At no point did the court ever say the injunction was improper. In fact, the court flat out said that a verdict should be found in favor of the plaintiff, which proves that you are wrong.