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

[travestyny]

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?

At least you are talking reasonably and I appreciate it!

Here is the thing. He only had to wait until August 5th. According to statements presented by others, he was still saying he would accept a Wills match late in August. So I don't understand why he breached the contract in July.

He wound up being very lucky that the promoter couldn't provided evidence that the fight would rake in 2 million. He also got lucky in a sense that no one moved on a contempt charge about him ignoring the injunction for him to not fight Tunney.

I've shown that he stated he wanted to fight Wills since 1919. He said that it was the "ONLY MAN HE WANTED." He had the contract as the court stated. He breached the contract in July when all he had to do was wait until August 5th to see if the money would come thru. He then said in August that he would fight Wills in a winner take all match for $300,000, provided that Wills side could come up with half that amount.

Come on. That makes absolutely no sense that in the month he was complaining about money for the fight, he says that he would take the fight and risk going home with nothing at worst and $300,000 at best. That's very odd.


For me, the bottom line is why sign the contract if he was expecting some money sooner than the contract stipulates. That makes absolutely no sense at all. They gave him $10 as a token of consideration for the contract, which he agreed was given to him. Why woudn't he have just said, "No, give me the $300,000 instead of the nominal $10." See what I'm saying? Something is very off here.

I think that any other fighter that signs a contract and then breaks the contract to get out of the fight, we call ducking. Dempsey does it here, but a few of you are saying...nah. That's alright.

[HOUDINI563]

Share



Dempsey v. Chicago Coliseum Club, 162 N.E. 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1928)
Indiana Court of Appeals
Filed: June 29th, 1928
Precedential Status: Precedential
Citations: 162 N.E. 237, 88 Ind. App. 251
Docket Number: No. 13,072.
Judges: PER CURIAM.

It thus appears from the record that the injunction herein expired, by its own limitation, with the passing of the month of September, 1926, and, since that time, the same has been without legal force and effect. The said injunctive order affected the personal conduct only of the appellant, and whether the facts justified the issuance of said order or not, the question is now moot. No public interest is involved herein, and this appeal should be dismissed. State, ex rel., v. Boyd (1909),172 Ind. 196, 87 N.E. 140; Meyer v. Farmers State Bank (1913),180 Ind. 483, 103 N.E. 97; Keller, Mayor, v. Rewers (1921),189 Ind. 339, 127 N.E. 149.

[travestyny]

Share



Dempsey v. Chicago Coliseum Club, 162 N.E. 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1928)
Indiana Court of Appeals
Filed: June 29th, 1928
Precedential Status: Precedential
Citations: 162 N.E. 237, 88 Ind. App. 251
Docket Number: No. 13,072.
Judges: PER CURIAM.

It thus appears from the record that the injunction herein expired, by its own limitation, with the passing of the month of September, 1926, and, since that time, the same has been without legal force and effect. The said injunctive order affected the personal conduct only of the appellant, and whether the facts justified the issuance of said order or not, the question is now moot. No public interest is involved herein, and this appeal should be dismissed. State, ex rel., v. Boyd (1909),172 Ind. 196, 87 N.E. 140; Meyer v. Farmers State Bank (1913),180 Ind. 483, 103 N.E. 97; Keller, Mayor, v. Rewers (1921),189 Ind. 339, 127 N.E. 149.

What's the point of this? The injunction was for the month of September. It wasn't going to stop him from fighting forever, obviously!!!

The fact of the matter is he DID fight in September. That's when the Tunney fight was held. Did you expect the promoter for the Wills fight to go after him at that time and accrue more legal fees after already being told they can't get much anyway? Dempsey would have only said....Ok, I'll fight in October.

What you are posting is DEMPSEY appealing the injunction two years later, and the court saying his appeal is dismissed because the injunction had expired at the end of September 1926.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

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!

I'm sure Jack is laughing from the grave.

By the way, I read some of Arthur Mercante's biography and how Dempsey knocked those two goons out when he was 76 on the night of Ali-Frazier I. Never knew that happened on the same night!

[Mr.MojoRisin']

At least you are talking reasonably and I appreciate it!

Here is the thing. He only had to wait until August 5th. According to statements presented by others, he was still saying he would accept a Wills match late in August. So I don't understand why he breached the contract in July.

He wound up being very lucky that the promoter couldn't provided evidence that the fight would rake in 2 million. He also got lucky in a sense that no one moved on a contempt charge about him ignoring the injunction for him to not fight Tunney.

I've shown that he stated he wanted to fight Wills since 1919. He said that it was the "ONLY MAN HE WANTED." He had the contract as the court stated. He breached the contract in July when all he had to do was wait until August 5th to see if the money would come thru. He then said in August that he would fight Wills in a winner take all match for $300,000, provided that Wills side could come up with half that amount.

Come on. That makes absolutely no sense that in the month he was complaining about money for the fight, he says that he would take the fight and risk going home with nothing at worst and $300,000 at best. That's very odd.


For me, the bottom line is why sign the contract if he was expecting some money sooner than the contract stipulates. That makes absolutely no sense at all. They gave him $10 as a token of consideration for the contract, which he agreed was given to him. Why woudn't he have just said, "No, give me the $300,000 instead of the nominal $10." See what I'm saying? Something is very off here.

I think that any other fighter that signs a contract and then breaks the contract to get out of the fight, we call ducking. Dempsey does it here, but a few of you are saying...nah. That's alright.

First off before anything, do you have the quote that he says he'd fight Wills for $300,000 winner take all?

Not only could the promoter not prove how much the fight would rake in (something he definitely should have been able to do) but he should have been able to prove his financial standing. The company couldn't prove they could pay either fighter and as far as I've read they didn't pay Wills any money.

We have to remember that we are looking at this situation after nearly 100 years has passed by. That's a lot of time for documents and facts to get lost and distorted by he said/she said and whatnot.

Why would Dempsey breach the contract in July if he just had to wait until August? There could be many answers to that. The first being he was being urged night and day by Kearns and Rickard to take the Tunney fight which would make him more money and would be a big draw. The Wills fight wasn't seen as a superfight by the fans. It was believed that it wouldn't draw flies. Another reason is, and I'm merely speculating here, that Dempsey was growing impatient and wanted to see some dough upfront. This relates back to the Wills fight being an unstable fight in terms of how much it would draw. I can see where he's coming from if that's the case. This promoter has you sign a contract and most of the money is relying on how many people show up to the fight but after signing it you see that things aren't looking so good so you want to see some cash up front. The promoter sounds very shady, he told Dempsey he would give him $125,000 but comes back with a $25,000 check that BOUNCES. That's highly illegal and he could have been put in jail if Dempsey wanted to really retaliate.

I know that between 1922 and 1926 there were multiple attempts to make a fight with Wills. There was one before the Gibbons fight, another in 1924, and another in 1926. I know that Kearns and Rickard were deadset against a Wills match, like really against it, it seems they (especially Rickard) were absolutely terrified of any mixed race bouts because of fear they would result in race riots like those after the Jeffries-Johnson fight. Rickard faced a lot of backlash from that.

It's really really hard to get a match made when your manager and promoter are completely uncooperative. Could you imagine Gennady Golovkin trying to get a fight with Canelo if he didn't have his promoter and manager?

[travestyny]

First off before anything, do you have the quote that he says he'd fight Wills for $300,000 winner take all?

Sure I do. I posted it already in this thread. I'm not just pulling things from the air, bro.



1. Claims that he wanted Wills since 1919. We know that he drew the color line in 1919, so I don't see how that is a true statement.

2. Claims that Wills is the ONLY MAN HE EVER WANTED. Highly doubtful for obvious reasons.

3. Claims that he NEVER drew the color line. Blatantly false. Direct quotations from him refute that.

4. Claims that no promoter ever stepped up for the Wills fight. The court case that we've been discussing proves that's a lie.

5. Claims that he won't take it anymore, will fight Wills or Demand to know why not, blah blah blah. Took him a long time to take that approach. From 1919 to 1926 he claimed it was the only man he wanted.

6. Claims if Wills really wants the fight, he would engage in a winner take all bout and come up with $150,000. Huh??? We all know Wills really wanted the fight. And it's highly unlikely that Wills would agree to a winner take all fight. Dempsey even alludes to Wills having difficulty covering this amount.

That is all very fishy, mixed in with a few blatant lies.

Not only could the promoter not prove how much the fight would rake in (something he definitely should have been able to do)...

No. Not according to the court. The court reasoned (and I think rightfully so, unfortunately for the promoter), that it would be impossible to prove how much the fight would rake in. For example, even the weather would have to be taken into consideration. Here is what they said:

The character of the undertaking was such that it would be impossible to produce evidence of a probative character sufficient to establish any amount which could be reasonably ascertainable by reason of the character of the undertaking. The profits from a boxing contest of this character, open to the public, is dependent upon so many different circumstances that they are not susceptible of definite legal determination. The success or failure of such an undertaking depends largely upon the ability of the promoters, the reputation of the contestants and the conditions of the weather at and prior to the holding of the contest, the accessibility of the place, the extent of the publicity, the possibility of other and counter attractions and many other questions which would enter into consideration. Such an entertainment lacks utterly the element of stability which exists in regular organized business.

...but he should have been able to prove his financial standing. The company couldn't prove they could pay either fighter and as far as I've read they didn't pay Wills any money. We have to remember that we are looking at this situation after nearly 100 years has passed by. That's a lot of time for documents and facts to get lost and distorted by he said/she said and whatnot.

But the point is that Dempsey never gave them a chance to prove that they had the funds to pull this off. The contract stipulates that they were to come up with the money by a certain time, and Dempsey agreed to that. Dempsey signed a contract that explicitly states when the money was supposed to arrive. Dempsey even admitted that he accepted $10 for consideration to make the contract binding. Now ask yourself.....why would he ever accept a measly $10 to make the contract binding if he was expecting a substantial amount of money at a time not in accordance with the contract? That really makes no sense at all! He was to receive $300,000 on August 5th. $500,000 10 days before the fight in cash. THAT is what would have been legally binding and the promoter would have been on the hook for this money in a court of law!!! He signed this agreement. He then told them in July that he was already preparing for Tunney. He then said in some of GhostofDempsey's quotes that he was still considering Wills in late August. Something doesn't add up. If he was still open to accepting the Wills fight as late as August 22nd (refer to GhostofD's quotation), then why wouldn't he have waited to see if the money came through August 5th???

Why would Dempsey breach the contract in July if he just had to wait until August? There could be many answers to that. The first being he was being urged night and day by Kearns and Rickard to take the Tunney fight which would make him more money and would be a big draw. The Wills fight wasn't seen as a superfight by the fans. It was believed that it wouldn't draw flies.

But he did sign the contract. And he also said that Wills was the only man he wanted, and that he wanted him since 1919. I think if any fighter does this today, we are calling it a duck. Don't know why this should be any different.

Another reason is, and I'm merely speculating here, that Dempsey was growing impatient and wanted to see some dough upfront. This relates back to the Wills fight being an unstable fight in terms of how much it would draw. I can see where he's coming from if that's the case. This promoter has you sign a contract and most of the money is relying on how many people show up to the fight but after signing it you see that things aren't looking so good so you want to see some cash up front. The promoter sounds very shady, he told Dempsey he would give him $125,000 but comes back with a $25,000 check that BOUNCES. That's highly illegal and he could have been put in jail if Dempsey wanted to really retaliate.

I think you are getting the facts of this case mixed up with something that happened in the past. According to GhostofD's post, that bouncing check happened in September, 1925. This contract was signed in March of 1926!!!

I know that between 1922 and 1926 there were multiple attempts to make a fight with Wills. There was one before the Gibbons fight, another in 1924, and another in 1926. I know that Kearns and Rickard were deadset against a Wills match, like really against it, it seems they (especially Rickard) were absolutely terrified of any mixed race bouts because of fear they would result in race riots like those after the Jeffries-Johnson fight. Rickard faced a lot of backlash from that.

It's really really hard to get a match made when your manager and promoter are completely uncooperative. Could you imagine Gennady Golovkin trying to get a fight with Canelo if he didn't have his promoter and manager?

Right. But Rickard wasn't involved with regards to this court proceeding. It's possible that he talked Dempsey out of complying with his legally binding agreement, but the excuse has always been that Dempsey wasn't shown the money. This court case proves that is inaccurate. He didn't wait for the money and blatantly broke a contract. Thanks to GhostofDempsey's post, we see that the story of the bouncing check had nothing to do with this contract that was signed. (Thanks Ghost! Good looking out!)

Dempsey himself said that he wanted Wills since 1919, and it was the only man he wanted. Said he'd even fight him for $300,000 at most and for free in the least. But then backs out by blatantly breaching a contract to fight Wills when he only had to wait until August 5th to receive $300,000. Said he was too busy training for Tunney by July. August 22nd he claims he was still ready to accept money for a Wills match. Hmmm.... That just ain't adding up!

Let me repeat to make it clear. In July he basically said FUCK WAITING FOR AUGUST 5TH FOR THIS MONEY. Then August 22nd he basically said "I'LL STILL ACCEPT MONEY FOR WILLS." Don't see why anyone would buy that.

[Dempsey-Louis]

T-NY

In the end you are trying to argue that a fight that fell apart financially, fell apart because Dempsey had a great fear of Wills. The story (as you posted it) just doesn't support that argument.

Hundreds of fights have fallen apart financially over the decades, and guess what, people love to claim it was because one fighter was ducking another. Usually, like this event, it fell apart because of money.

This is what I believe your posts have shown us; you refuse to recognize that, for Dempsey, the Tunney fight was the better move.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Sure I do. I posted it already in this thread. I'm not just pulling things from the air, bro.



1. Claims that he wanted Wills since 1919. We know that he drew the color line in 1919, so I don't see how that is a true statement.

2. Claims that Wills is the ONLY MAN HE EVER WANTED. Highly doubtful for obvious reasons.

3. Claims that he NEVER drew the color line. Blatantly false. Direct quotations from him refute that.

4. Claims that no promoter ever stepped up for the Wills fight. The court case that we've been discussing proves that's a lie.

5. Claims that he won't take it anymore, will fight Wills or Demand to know why not, blah blah blah. Took him a long time to take that approach. From 1919 to 1926 he claimed it was the only man he wanted.

6. Claims if Wills really wants the fight, he would engage in a winner take all bout and come up with $150,000. Huh??? We all know Wills really wanted the fight. And it's highly unlikely that Wills would agree to a winner take all fight. Dempsey even alludes to Wills having difficulty covering this amount.

That is all very fishy, mixed in with a few blatant lies.



No. Not according to the court. The court reasoned (and I think rightfully so, unfortunately for the promoter), that it would be impossible to prove how much the fight would rake in. For example, even the weather would have to be taken into consideration. Here is what they said:






But the point is that Dempsey never gave them a chance to prove that they had the funds to pull this off. The contract stipulates that they were to come up with the money by a certain time, and Dempsey agreed to that. Dempsey signed a contract that explicitly states when the money was supposed to arrive. Dempsey even admitted that he accepted $10 for consideration to make the contract binding. Now ask yourself.....why would he ever accept a measly $10 to make the contract binding if he was expecting a substantial amount of money at a time not in accordance with the contract? That really makes no sense at all! He was to receive $300,000 on August 5th. $500,000 10 days before the fight in cash. THAT is what would have been legally binding and the promoter would have been on the hook for this money in a court of law!!! He signed this agreement. He then told them in July that he was already preparing for Tunney. He then said in some of GhostofDempsey's quotes that he was still considering Wills in late August. Something doesn't add up. If he was still open to accepting the Wills fight as late as August 22nd (refer to GhostofD's quotation), then why wouldn't he have waited to see if the money came through August 5th???



But he did sign the contract. And he also said that Wills was the only man he wanted, and that he wanted him since 1919. I think if any fighter does this today, we are calling it a duck. Don't know why this should be any different.



I think you are getting the facts of this case mixed up with something that happened in the past. According to GhostofD's post, that bouncing check happened in September, 1925. This contract was signed in March of 1926!!!



Right. But Rickard wasn't involved with regards to this court proceeding. It's possible that he talked Dempsey out of complying with his legally binding agreement, but the excuse has always been that Dempsey wasn't shown the money. This court case proves that is inaccurate. He didn't wait for the money and blatantly broke a contract. Thanks to GhostofDempsey's post, we see that the story of the bouncing check had nothing to do with this contract that was signed. (Thanks Ghost! Good looking out!)

Dempsey himself said that he wanted Wills since 1919, and it was the only man he wanted. Said he'd even fight him for $300,000 at most and for free in the least. But then backs out by blatantly breaching a contract to fight Wills when he only had to wait until August 5th to receive $300,000. Said he was too busy training for Tunney by July. August 22nd he claims he was still ready to accept money for a Wills match. Hmmm.... That just ain't adding up!

Let me repeat to make it clear. In July he basically said FUCK WAITING FOR AUGUST 5TH FOR THIS MONEY. Then August 22nd he basically said "I'LL STILL ACCEPT MONEY FOR WILLS." Don't see why anyone would buy that.

1. I honestly think that source is lying. I don't think Dempsey said that at all. For one, just look at the language used. I've read tons of stuff on Dempsey, way more than the average historical boxing fan but never have I heard him refer to black people as Negros or part of the Negro race. He always uses colored. Another thing that clues me in is him saying he's wanted the fight since he won the title. I find this unrealistic because there were no talks about Wills until the 20s and Dempsey doesn't say anything in his autobiography about Wills until 1922. To claim he wanted the fight since 1919, to me, would be very significant and he certainly would have said it in his autobiography. You yourself acknowledge that there's so much in there that is a lie, why would he blatantly lie about so much and expect to get away with it? I've never read anything on anyone that is that ******. For those reasons, I think the source is lying. It wasn't by Dempsey.

2. There's something in his autobio about Kearns trying to make the fight on several occasions but things kept falling through.

3. Dempsey did give them a chance. They couldn't produce the funds according to the court. I don't know what Ghost of Dempsey said but I know that the bouncing check happened in 1926.

There it is. Dempsey asked for some dough, they commited a FELONY by passing a bad check. Sounds like Wills was the one ducking Dempsey. If we're playing that game that is.

[travestyny]

T-NY

In the end you are trying to argue that a fight that fell apart financially, fell apart because Dempsey had a great fear of Wills. The story (as you posted it) just doesn't support that argument.

Hundreds of fights have fallen apart financially over the decades, and guess what, people love to claim it was because one fighter was ducking another. Usually, like this event, it fell apart because of money.

This is what I believe your posts have shown us; you refuse to recognize that, for Dempsey, the Tunney fight was the better move.

What do you mean by fell apart financially?

It is impossible to argue that it fell apart financially if Dempsey walked before the money was to come in, as per the contract. The contract was valid and clear.

I think you can argue that he walked because he was offered more money, if it indeed was more (I dunno the details of the Tunney contract), but it doesn’t change the fact that he breached a contract to get out of the Wills fight. If Will was the only man he wanted, since 1919, And he would have fought him in a winner take all bout for $300,000, dunno why he breached this contract.

I’m not trying to convince you or anyone. I’m not even trying to argue he was scared. But it’s a fact even stated by a court that he breached a contract to get out of this fight. People are free to look at that as they want.

But in the end, he didn’t fight Langford because he was scared, didn’t fight Jeanette because he is black, and breached a contract for Wills. I’m really not trying to dump on Dempsey but those appear to be the facts.

[Anthony342]

Calling people liars now?

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

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

Love your Vinnie Jones pic. Saw him in an episode of Psych recently and he's also a regular on the new ABC series Deception.